Check a scene job

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, and the description adds non-annotation context: the operation is a single status read and these jobs 'honestly 404 across a broker restart.' This extra caveat meaningfully informs agent expectations beyond the structured annotation.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the notable 404 caveat is appended cleanly without distracting from the main purpose.

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 two-parameter status tool, the description conveys the core operation and a key failure mode. However, with no output schema, it omits any sense of what statuses or return payload the caller should expect, and the parameter relationship remains underspecified.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining scan_id and job_id. It gives no parameter-level detail and does not explain the relationship between scan_id, job_id, and the scene job. Only the phrase 'scene job' loosely anchors job_id.

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 performs a single status read of a scene job and enumerates the relevant job types (SAM-3D completion, variants, view renders). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as scene_job_wait, but the phrase 'One status read' strongly implies a non-blocking check.

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 when to use it ('one status read') and gives a useful operational caveat about 404s after broker restarts. However, it does not explicitly contrast with scene_job_wait, workspace_job_status, or other status-related siblings, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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