get_job_status

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation returning status fields, but lacks disclosure of any side effects, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence containing only essential information: verb, resource, and key fields returned. No wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description naming return fields is helpful. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage context relative to numerous sibling tools, leaving gaps for a complex domain like job management.

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%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The tool description only mentions return fields and does not explain the 'follow' parameter or further clarify 'job_id', leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a lightweight job status with specific fields (id, state, result, blocked_by_id). The term 'lightweight' implies a simpler, faster alternative to more detailed job retrieval tools.

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 usage for quick status checks via 'lightweight', but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like get_job or get_job_details, nor when not to use it.

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