stem_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states this is a read operation and lists the returned aspects (status, stage, stems, errors), making the non-mutating nature and primary output clear. It does not describe edge cases like ordering or failure behavior, but it is reasonably transparent for a status-read 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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, and it is not padded with schema-redundant material.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential purpose, output areas, and parameter omission behavior. However, it leaves job_dir undefined and does not cover return formatting or behavior for missing/invalid jobs, leaving a moderate gap in complete guidance.

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 documents job_id ('Omit to list the recent jobs') but leaves job_dir entirely undocumented, and schema description coverage is only 50%. The description does not explain job_dir or how it relates to job_id, so an agent would not know how to use that parameter correctly.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource ('one separation job' or recent ones), plus the data returned: status, stage, stems, errors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stem_job_cancel (cancel) and separate_stems (create), which have different purposes.

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 conveys when to use the tool: to inspect a separation job's status or list recent jobs. The schema's job_id description adds the key usage distinction ('Omit to list the recent jobs'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives such as stem_backends or stem_job_cancel.

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