fusion_job_status

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'An unrecognised state counts as still running on purpose' explains a deliberate, safety-oriented behavior. This is exactly the kind of contextual disclosure that helps an agent avoid prematurely abandoning jobs. It aligns with the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The rationale for treating unknown states as running is justified in one clause. The Args section is direct and minimal.

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 polling tool, the description covers what matters: what to check, when to stop polling, and how to handle unrecognized states. An output schema exists to describe return fields, so the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is fully usable from this definition alone.

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 only names 'request_id' with title 'Request Id', providing zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying that request_id is 'The id returned by fusion_submit_job,' which gives the agent the precise origin and meaning of the required parameter.

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 and resource: 'Check a scheduled process submitted with fusion_submit_job.' It clearly distinguishes this tool as the status/polling counterpart to a job submission tool. The reference to the sibling submit tool anchors its purpose without ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for checking a scheduled process after submission, and 'finished tells you whether to stop polling.' It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the polling behavior is stated well enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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