Check a workspace job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by specifying a GET endpoint and a status read. It adds value by disclosing the response shape, including the status enum and optional fields like stage, scan_id, and error, which are not present in the 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?

The entire definition is one compact sentence that states the action, endpoint, and response format. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter, read-only status tool, this description is complete: it covers the endpoint, the status values, the optional fields, and the error case. No output schema exists, but the description provides the necessary return structure directly.

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% and the schema only says job_id is a required string. The description compensates by embedding job_id in the endpoint path (GET /api/workspace/jobs/<job_id>), clarifying that it is a path parameter and tying it to the job being polled.

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 ('status read') and resource ('ingest/export job'), names the exact endpoint, and lists the response fields. This clearly distinguishes it from scene_job_status (scene jobs) and workspace_job_wait (waiting on a 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 clearly indicates this is for checking a single ingest/export job's status, which implies it should be used for polling rather than waiting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'one status read' phrasing provides clear functional context.

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