memoryos_get_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention response format, possible job status values, error behavior, or whether the status may be polled repeatedly.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is presented clearly. It is appropriately short for such a simple tool, though brevity leaves several behavioral details unstated.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable: it names the operation and the object being fetched. However, there is no output schema and no description of return shape or status values, and the similar sibling memoryos_universal_get_job_status is not addressed, leaving the full context incomplete.

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 single parameter job_id is required and has no schema description, so coverage is 0%. The description only implies that job_id identifies the extraction job; it does not say where this ID comes from, its format, or any constraints. Because the parameter name is self-explanatory, this is adequate but minimal.

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 'Fetch extraction job status' states a clear verb and resource, so an agent knows this is a read operation for job status. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling memoryos_universal_get_job_status.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains memoryos_universal_get_job_status, which could serve a similar purpose, but the description does not explain the distinction or any conditions for selecting one over the other.

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