cutbolt_job_status

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive): it discloses that an exited worker can trigger checked publication reconciliation or an opted-in retry, and that internal metadata may be updated while no worker is started. This is valuable side-effect context, though permission or rate-limit behavior is not covered.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; return contents are front-loaded and the side-effect caveat follows logically. Slightly telegraphic phrasing costs it nothing major, but it's not maximally polished.

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-status tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key caveat an agent needs (side-effect reconciliation/retry without starting a worker). No output schema exists, but the receipt components are listed, so little is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, job_root, and the detail enum. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned (saved state, frame progress, attempt history, completion/error receipt), which is clearly a status read. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like cutbolt_job_wait or cutbolt_session_receipt, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Implied usage context (checking job state after a render.start ticket), and it mentions an alternate path (worker-exit triggers reconciliation or retry), but it never says when an agent should call this versus cutbolt_job_wait or cutbolt_session_receipt.

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