fgis_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. It adds useful context about what status aspects are covered (progress, failed tasks, interruption state), but it does not disclose error behavior, job lifetime, or whether results are valid only while a download is active. 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word adds meaning, with no filler, redundancy, or tangential detail.

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, read-only status tool, the description covers the core purpose and the annotations cover safety. However, it lacks guidance on where job_id comes from, what the response looks like, and any caveats about polling or completion. There is no output schema to fill that gap, so some completeness is missing.

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 0%: job_id is just a string with no documented format or origin. The description only implicitly ties it to a background download; it doesn't explain where to obtain it or any constraints. The description does not adequately compensate for the bare 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('background download') and the information returned: progress, failed tasks, and interruption state. This clearly separates it from sibling actions like fgis_start_download, fgis_cancel_job, and fgis_resume_job.

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 implies usage when checking on a background download, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a job_id from fgis_start_download. The read-only intent is clear, but no active guidance or exclusions are provided.

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