jobd_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool is read-only (returns record) and describes blocking behavior with wait=true. It does not mention rate limits or authorization, but for a read tool the basics are covered.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main output, lists fields, gives usage guidance, and explains the wait parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, and wait behavior. It lacks a structured list of return fields but is sufficient for a read tool. Minor improvement would be mentioning return format.

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 33% (only wait_timeout_s has a description). The description adds meaning for wait ('Pass wait=true to block until terminal or wait_timeout_s') and job_id (implicitly clear). It compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns 'the full JobInfo record for one job_id' and lists specific fields (state, exit_code, timings, host, scheduling internals). It also distinguishes from siblings like jobd_list and jobd_events by noting use for debugging job routing/failure/stalling.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'for a quick state check AND for debugging why a job routed/failed/stalled.' It also explains the wait parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative siblings for other purposes.

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