job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return surface (status, stages, outputs, license, errors), which tells the agent this is a non-mutating inspection, but it says nothing about auth, error conditions, or behavior when the job is missing or still running.

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 after the verb, listing exactly what is returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-param read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description conveys the basic purpose but omits parameter meaning entirely and offers no usage context, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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% for two parameters. The description never mentions job_id or job_dir, so it does not compensate: the agent gets no meaning for the required job_id nor for the optional job_dir.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus resource 'one job' and enumerates what is returned (status, stages, outputs, model license, errors). It clearly distinguishes this as a read/lookup tool versus the sibling actions submit_generation and run_job.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. The verb 'Read' implies a query against an existing job, but nothing states when to prefer this over run_job or submit_generation, nor any prerequisites.

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