Get Rendobar Job

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable details: polling behavior, status progression, output structure (data, file, files, expiresAt), and error object. No contradictions 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and then details polling and output. It is relatively long but every sentence adds necessary context. Slightly verbose on output structure but remains focused.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return value structure, error handling, and polling behavior. It is fully adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single parameter jobId is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds context by mentioning it comes from submit_job and providing an example ('job_abc123'), which aids understanding.

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 it checks status and retrieves results of a submitted job, distinguishing it from siblings like submit_job (submission) and cancel_job (cancellation). The verb 'check' and resource 'job' are specific.

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 explicitly says to poll until complete or failed, indicating usage after submission. While it does not list alternatives, the context of siblings makes it clear when 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.