get_job_check

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

The description transparently lists all possible statuses and their meanings, including 'working' for nonexistent jobs. Given no annotations, it carries the burden well, though it could mention it is a read-only operation with no side effects.

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 efficient, front-loading the purpose, and each line serves a clear function. The list of statuses could be formatted for clarity, but overall it is concise.

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?

The description adequately explains status outcomes but does not clarify what 'results' entails (e.g., return format). Since there is no output schema, more detail on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints.

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 the tool checks job status and results, listing possible statuses. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'wait_job_completion', which may be used for similar purposes.

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?

Usage is implied (when you have a job ID), but the description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wait_job_completion', nor when not to use it.

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