memoryos_universal_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. It only states the fetch action and reveals nothing about authentication needs, required tokens, rate limits, return format, or job lifecycle semantics.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is positive. However, it is under-specified and omits essential context, so the brevity is not fully earned.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not clarify the universal mode, the relationship to memoryos_get_job_status, or how the optional auth parameters are used. An agent cannot reliably decide whether this is the right tool or how to call it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to job_id, uui_token, or agent_api_key. Since the schema itself provides only types and defaults, the agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters control.

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 states a specific action (fetch) and resource (universal memory extraction job status), so an agent can tell what it operates on. However, it does not explain what 'universal' means or differentiate it from the closely named sibling memoryos_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus memoryos_get_job_status or any other alternative. The description does not mention typical usage context, such as after submitting an extraction job or polling behavior.

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