Get Processing Job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it specifies the progress range, the structure of successful results (result, loaded_layers, warnings), and the error field for failures. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (state of a background job) and packs in all relevant details (states, progress, result contents, and listing behavior) without waste.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter) and that an output schema exists to document return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly: the job states, what each contains, and how to list all jobs.

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?

The schema has one optional job_id with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that omitting job_id lists all jobs, giving functional meaning to the parameter beyond its schema default.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the state of a background job, enumerating all possible states (running, succeeded, failed, cancelled) and their contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_processing_job and cancel_processing_job by focusing on status retrieval.

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 implies when to use it: to check job status. It also provides a usage condition: 'Omit job_id to list every job.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the sibling context, the intended usage is clear enough.

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