Alias cũ của cloud_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — sandbox jobs are auto-detected and need no header — but says nothing about the blocking/polling semantics implied by wait (default true) with timeout_sec=180, which is the most consequential behavior for a status-check tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the compatibility/routing guidance front-loaded ahead of the sandbox note. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 5-parameter job-status tool with no output schema and only 20% parameter coverage, the description is adequate on routing but silent on what a status result contains and on the semantics of blocking (wait/timeout_sec/interval_sec). An agent can pick between the alias pair, but cannot fully predict call behavior.

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 only 20% (only 'sandbox' is documented), so the description must compensate for wait, timeout_sec, and interval_sec. It partially compensates by clarifying that sandbox detection is automatic, but leaves the polling/timeout parameters entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 identifies the tool only by reference to its canonical equivalent ('Alias tương thích' of cloud_job_status), never stating the verb+resource (e.g. 'returns the status of a cloud job') outright. An agent must infer the purpose from the tool name and the alias relationship. It does, however, make the sibling relationship explicit, which aids disambiguation.

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?

It directly routes the agent: use cloud_job_status for new integrations, implicitly meaning this alias is for legacy/compatibility callers. That is a concrete when-to-use-the-other-tool statement naming the alternative. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' clause, so it stops short of a 5.

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