get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that the tool queries status and error information, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a query tool, readOnlyHint would be valuable, but it is absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could include slight more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status codes, error structure, fields), nor does it provide example usage or caveats. For a tool with sibling tools and no output documentation, more context is needed.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'job_id' parameter at all. Although 'job_id' is self-explanatory, the description fails to add any semantic detail about its format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema provides (name and type).

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 queries job status and error information. It uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('job status and error information'). Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_job_logs or list_job_artifacts, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct enough given the context.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_job_logs (for logs) or check_input_file (for input validation). Agents receive no guidance on prerequisites or contextual fit.

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