job_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that omitting job_id returns the running job, queue, and recently finished jobs, but it does not mention error handling, return format, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, dense sentence states the core behavior and the optional-parameter branch without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, one optional parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main calling patterns. Minor gaps such as what happens with an invalid job_id or how 'recently finished' is defined are left unstated, but the core usage is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It does so by explaining the behavioral difference between providing and omitting job_id, which is the essential semantic. It does not restate the integer type, but the name and behavior make it reasonably clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource (jobs) and the two modes: status of a specific job with job_id, or running/queued/recent jobs without it. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve', so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to include job_id versus omit it, which is the key usage decision for this tool. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like 'status' or 'job_cancel', but the calling-mode guidance is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.