job_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses read-only intent and inclusion of tails, but does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or return format. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: first states main function, second explains conditional behavior.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools like job_result and search_jobs, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on parameter interactions, error cases, and how it differs from related tools.

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 50% (limit and tail_chars have descriptions). Description adds context that job_ids triggers 'recent jobs' behavior, but does not explain job_id singular or interactions between parameters. Minimal added value over 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'asynchronous job status', including tails. It mentions alternative behavior when no job_ids are supplied, which helps distinguish from some siblings like job_result, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Description implies usage by stating conditional behavior for recent jobs, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like job_result, search_jobs, or cancel_jobs. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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