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 well: it discloses status semantics, field availability per status, and that repeated polling is expected. The polling instruction inherently communicates that the operation is safe and side-effect-free.

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 dense sentence conveys the tool's purpose, response fields, and polling behavior without redundancy. The semicolon-separated field list is compact and the polling instruction is placed at the end.

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 status-check tool, the description fully covers response fields, status semantics, and the polling loop. The output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation.

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 explicitly document job_id; it only implies it is the identifier of the background job created by unpack_async/repack_async. This is inferable but not fully spelled out, and the description does not mention how the ID is obtained.

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 identifies the tool as a status query for background jobs from unpack_async/repack_async, listing the possible status values and response fields. This verb+resource combination makes it distinct from the sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs polling until status != 'done', providing the core usage pattern, and scopes the tool to unpack_async/repack_async background jobs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct use.

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