monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavioral traits beyond the schema: that wait_seconds blocks and that cancel is a mutating stop operation. However, it omits whether cancellation is irreversible, what statuses exist, permission requirements, and any return shape — significant gaps for a tool with a write mode and no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by parameter modes. Slightly telegraphic ('Status and results' is vague as to what is returned), but no wasted text.

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 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and each parameter's effect but leaves the agent guessing about return values, job status vocabulary, and the consequences of cancel. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does address all three parameters: job_ids (omit to list recent), wait_seconds (blocks for running jobs), cancel (stops them). It adds no format, default, or boundary details — e.g., what a job_id looks like or whether wait_seconds is capped.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Status and results of delegate jobs.' The tie to the 'delegate' sibling makes its role in the workflow inferable. It does not explicitly name the sibling as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives mode-based usage ('Without job_ids lists recent jobs') and explains the blocking/cancel behaviors, which implies when each mode applies. It never states when to prefer this over delegate or accounts, nor any prerequisitive such as requiring existing job IDs.

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