job_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by specifying it returns status, latest progress, result, or error for a session-local job. It does not disclose timing, blocking behavior, or how job_id is obtained, but with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to defining the resource and the kinds of information returned.

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 read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents (status, progress, result, error). However, it leaves gaps around how to obtain job_id and when to choose job_status over read_results, so it is only 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?

The schema has one required parameter ('job_id') with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies a job identifier through the phrase 'job's status' and does not explain the parameter's format, source, or expected value, adding little beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a session-local job's status, latest progress, result or error'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as read_results or start_job, and the mention of 'result' overlaps with read_results, leaving some ambiguity.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_results or start_job. It only describes what the tool does, with no explicit context, exclusions, or guidance about when polling job status is appropriate.

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