get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the optional blocking wait (wait_seconds) and the response contents (stage results and last console lines). It does not mention timeout or failure behavior, but the safety profile is already covered by 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 three short, information-dense sentences with the core operation front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only status-polling tool, the description covers the operation, optional wait behavior, and response contents despite having no output schema. It does not cover error handling or job_id format, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and helpful annotations.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains wait_seconds ('wait up to wait_seconds for it to finish') and implies tail_lines through 'last console lines', but job_id is left entirely implicit and no parameter constraints, units, or formats are given. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 operation as retrieving the status of a background job, and it specifies the job types ('flow run or programming'). It is distinct from list_jobs and get_build_status by resource, but it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_jobs, get_build_status, or cancel_job. The mention of 'optionally wait' implies a polling use case, but there is no stated condition for choosing this tool over related job-management tools.

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