Alias cũ của cloud_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail (sandbox jobs are auto-detected, no header needed), but it does not explain that the tool polls/waits for job status, what the response looks like, or whether it is a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states alias status and routing first, then adds the sandbox note. Every sentence earns its place, though the alias statement partially duplicates the title.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is incomplete. The agent learns how to route to the canonical tool and about sandbox detection, but not what the tool returns, how wait/timeout interact, or what job_id should reference.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It partially clarifies sandbox behavior, but it says nothing about job_id format, wait semantics, timeout_sec, or interval_sec, leaving most parameters explained only by their names.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility alias and explicitly names cloud_job_status as the canonical equivalent, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool. However, it never states the underlying action (checking job status) in its own words, relying on the name and title for the core function.

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?

"dùng cloud_job_status cho tích hợp mới" explicitly tells the agent to use the canonical tool for new integrations and implies this alias is reserved for legacy compatibility. This is concrete when/when-not guidance with the alternative named.

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