get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only, not confirm-gated, no route (in-memory only), and details error behavior for unknown job_id, including the server-restart caveat. This is exemplary transparency for an MCP tool.

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 main action is front-loaded and each major behavior gets a sentence. The parenthetical doc-spec reference and ADR mention add traceability but are somewhat redundant/verbose, so it isn't maximally concise.

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, side-effect-free lookup, the description covers purpose, storage scope, read-only safety, and error semantics. The main missing piece is the success return value shape, which matters because no output schema exists, but the tool is simple enough that the gap is minor.

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 for job_id is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that job_id selects one job and that an unknown job_id raises JobNotFoundError, which is useful. But it doesn't explain the expected format of job_id or how to obtain valid ids, leaving a partial gap.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch one job's current status from the in-memory job store.' It clearly states the tool is a single-job lookup, not a list or result fetch, and distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it maps to no OctoBot route. This separates it from siblings like list_jobs and get_job_result.

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 gives clear context: this is a read-only, non-confirm-gated, in-memory-only lookup for one job. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so an agent must infer the boundary against siblings such as list_jobs and get_job_result.

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