get_job_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It implies a read-only status check, but it does not mention potential outcomes such as pending, completed, or failed states, nor does it address polling semantics or error conditions. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent of behavioral expectations.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and well-structured for the tool's simple nature.

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 status-checking tool, the description gives minimal but sufficient context about its async-job relationship. However, there is no output schema or explanation of the return format, and the relationship to get_job_result is not explicitly clarified. An agent might need additional details to use the tool confidently in a polling workflow.

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 provides no description for job_id, and the tool description only vaguely references 'an async job'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining what job_id refers to and how to obtain it. The identifier's purpose is inferable from context, but no format, source, or validation details are provided.

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 states that the tool returns the status of an async job, which is clear enough given the tool name. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the intent is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_job_result by focusing on status rather than result.

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 provides limited context by mentioning 'async job created by a heavy tool call', implying it is used for polling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job_result, nor does it explain the expected workflow. No concrete usage conditions are given.

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