job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether the call blocks, whether results are partial while running, what happens for an unknown or expired job_id, or that output is truncated — only 'progress and per-cell results' hints at in-flight behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key payload terms are front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency is not the same as sufficiency for a polling tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Everything else an agent needs — polling semantics, terminal states, how job_id is obtained, truncation via max_output_chars — is absent, which is thin for a tool with 0% param coverage and no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters and does not. It says nothing about job_id being the required run identifier, nor that max_output_chars caps the returned text (default 2000), which is the only non-obvious parameter behavior here.

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 gives the resource ('background run') and the payload ('progress and per-cell results'), but it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never names job_id as the handle or distinguishes itself from list_jobs. An agent can infer this is a status poller, but only by guessing.

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 on when to call this versus list_jobs, cancel_job, or run_cells, and no hint about polling cadence or whether to call repeatedly until the run finishes. Usage is implied at best.

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