rhino_render_queue_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral detail by mentioning progress and completed frames as part of the returned status, going slightly beyond the annotation-only picture.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the relevant outputs efficiently, and every word earns its place.

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 read-only status query with one documented parameter and an output schema, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not naming the companion submit/list tools or explicitly noting that the job_id comes from a prior submission.

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 schema already documents the only parameter (job_id) as the GUID returned by rhino_render_queue_submit, so the description does not need to repeat parameter mechanics. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but none is really required.

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 ('Inspect') and names both the resource (queued render job) and the exact aspects covered (status, progress, completed frames). This makes it easy to distinguish from related queue operations like submit, cancel, or list.

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 implies this tool is for checking a specific render job's status, but it does not explicitly contrast it with rhino_render_queue_list or state that it should be used after rhino_render_queue_submit. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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