Check render status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It clearly identifies the operation as a read (durable status) and specifies the output when succeeded. It also includes a rate-limiting guideline (poll interval). Could be improved by mentioning possible error states.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose and output, second adds polling guideline, third states auth requirements. Likely efficient and 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?

For a simple status check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral constraint (poll interval), and output on success. Missing details about possible intermediate statuses or error responses, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter job_id, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic depth beyond what the schema already provides (i.e., it is the job ID returned by manic_render).

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 states the tool reads the durable status of a render job and returns the artifact URL on success. It distinguishes from siblings like manic_render (which starts jobs) and manic_save_to_project (which persists results).

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?

Explicitly advises polling no more than every 10 seconds and mentions the required API key and scope (jobs:read). However, it does not explicitly describe when to avoid using this tool or compare with the sibling `manic_check`.

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