job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the status is 'parsed from its log', a useful behavioral detail, and enumerates the possible states. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but the operation is clearly read-only and safe.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and return values. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it specifies what to pass, what the tool returns, and even hints at the underlying mechanism (log parsing). No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (job_id), so the description must compensate. It adds context by referring to 'a simulation job' and 'its log', but does not explain the value's origin, format, or how to obtain it. This is minimal compensation, though the parameter name is self-descriptive.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'state of a simulation job', listing the exact statuses and additional fields (elapsed time, current step/time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_list and job_logs which handle different concerns.

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 implies clear usage: use this tool to obtain the status, elapsed time, and step/time of a simulation job. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is well-defined and distinct from siblings.

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