job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (by id or all) and that it is read-only (via '[read]'). However, it does not explain what happens when job_id is invalid, whether results are paginated, or what state jobs can be in. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence, with no wasted words: it states the operation type, resource, and conditional behavior concisely. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and low sibling relatedness, the description covers the core mechanism. But for a listing tool, it could mention what fields each job status entry contains, whether results are sorted, or any rate limits. It is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The description explains the 'job_id' parameter's role: if provided, returns status for that job; if empty/omitted, returns all jobs. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema—specifically the default behavior. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules for the id string.

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 starts with '[read]' which clearly signals a read operation, and then states the tool checks status by id or lists all jobs. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'download' or 'transcribe' which are clearly different operations.

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 implies use when needing job status or listing current jobs, but does not explicitly say when to use alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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