reinvent_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (status, log tail, current epoch, result summaries, top SMILES, checkpoint paths) and its scope (both agent-launched and registered jobs). This goes beyond a simple 'get status' and helps the agent predict behavior, though it doesn't mention error handling or invalid IDs.

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 well-structured with Returns and Args sections, and every sentence adds value. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains focused and readable.

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 and the lack of an output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing return contents and parameter provenance. It does not mention potential error cases or how to interpret statuses, but for a polling tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema only defines 'job_id' as a string, but the description's Args section adds critical meaning: 'ID from reinvent_transfer_learning, reinvent_reinforcement_learning, or reinvent_register_job.' This tells the agent where to obtain the value, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Poll the status of any registered REINVENT4 TL or RL job', using a specific verb ('Poll') and a clear resource ('status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that launch, validate, or analyze jobs, making its purpose immediately obvious.

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 states 'Works for both agent-launched and user-registered jobs', providing useful context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but since it is the only status-polling tool among the siblings, the usage context is clear.

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