get_patch_job

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get the current status,' which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose behavior such as error handling, whether the job must exist, or what the response contains. Without annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool that may need to handle missing job 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It delivers the core purpose efficiently, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides minimal but adequate context: it tells the agent what the tool does and implies the job_id parameter. However, it lacks any mention of return values, error conditions, or use cases, and with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left with some uncertainty. It is functional but not rich.

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 lists one parameter, job_id, with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention job_id or explain its semantics, forcing the agent to infer from the tool name that it identifies the job. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's action: 'Get the current status of a background patch job.' This specifies a verb and resource, and implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'get_patch_result', which could be confused as similar, so it doesn't fully distinguish among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_patch_result or cancel_patch_job. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios, so an agent gets no help in choosing this tool over its siblings.

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