job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool read-only, explains that it does not use PixInsight and therefore answers while a job runs, and enumerates every state value plus the ancillary data (elapsed time, processEvents interval, mcpProgress text, result/error, console errors).

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?

One dense but well-structured sentence lists the return fields, followed by a short default-behavior sentence and a short read-only caveat; nothing is redundant, though the first sentence is long enough to be slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return shape; it does, describing the state set, timing metrics, progress text, and terminal result/error content. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented there. The description's note that omitting job_id returns the running or most recent job restates the schema rather than adding format or ID-provenance detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (report on) and resource (a job started by run_pjsr/run_pjsr_file with async), and enumerates the exact fields reported, so an agent can distinguish it from cancel_job or wbpp_status without opening any schema.

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 gives a clear trigger (a job started by run_pjsr or run_pjsr_file using async) and explains the no-argument default behavior. It never names an explicit alternative sibling (e.g., cancel_job, wbpp_status) or states when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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