jobd_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the full return surface, the wait=true blocking behavior, and the timeout parameter, which is substantial context. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a status tool this is reasonably complete.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: return contents first, use cases second, wait behavior last. It avoids fluff and is well-structured for scanning.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and giving practical use cases. It could additionally explain how this tool differs from jobd_events or jobd_logs, and clarify whether a timeout returns partial data or errors, but it is largely sufficient.

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 only 33%, but the description explains wait semantics directly ('block until terminal or wait_timeout_s') and makes job_id's role implicitly clear. The timeout clamp is already in the schema. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 precisely identifies the resource ('full JobInfo record for one job_id') and enumerates the returned fields, from state and exit_code to scheduling internals. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jobd_list by emphasizing a single job and deep debugging detail.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for a quick state check and for debugging why a job routed, failed, or stalled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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