get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'parse' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything. It also does not disclose behavior when files are missing or the job does not exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no fluff. The primary action ('Parse') is front-loaded, and the description is concise and to the point.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains what the tool does for a simple read operation. It could mention error handling or what 'current' means, but for this simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'a job' which clearly maps to the job_name parameter, giving it meaning beyond a bare string. However, it does not specify any constraints or format details, leaving the parameter semantics thin.

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 states a specific verb ('Parse') and a clear resource ('current output files of a job') and the outcome ('return a status summary'). It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_job_file (which reads a specific file) and list_jobs (which lists jobs).

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 implies usage: when you have a job name and need a status summary, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit through the verb and resource, but lacks explicit routing or exclusions.

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