job_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by explaining that succeeded jobs return a result, failed or canceled jobs return a reason, and all jobs report their latest progress message.

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 definition is two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. It presents the core behavior first, then appends the origin context.

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 and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on using it as a poll versus using job_wait to block.

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 100% description coverage and documents the single jobId parameter with an example. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it states that the tool returns a job's state and enumerates the possible states and associated payloads. It also names the tools that create jobs, which gives useful context, but it does not explicitly distinguish job_status from the sibling tool job_wait.

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 that the tool is used to check job state and notes where jobs originate. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus the closely related job_wait tool or when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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