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 discloses that wait=true blocks until terminal and that the timeout is server-clamped to 270s. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not explicit).

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 paragraph that front-loads the record contents, then provides usage guidance, then wait behavior. It is reasonably concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter behaviors, and usage context. It does not describe return format but lists the fields included in the record, which suffices.

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% (only wait_timeout_s has a schema description). The description adds meaning by explaining the wait parameter (block until terminal) and that wait_timeout_s is clamped to 270. job_id is straightforward but not elaborated. Thus, the description adds significant value beyond the sparse 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 clearly states it returns the full JobInfo record for a job_id and lists specific fields (state, exit_code, timings, host, scheduling internals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jobd_submit, jobd_logs, and jobd_cancel by focusing on status and debugging.

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 explicitly says 'Use for a quick state check AND for debugging why a job routed/failed/stalled.' It also mentions optional wait behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., preferring jobd_logs for logs), but the context is clear.

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