rf_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 does state that the tool returns progress and result when done, which is a basic behavioral trait, but it omits any information about whether the operation is read-only, whether it blocks, errors on unknown job_ids, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. The information is minimal and insufficient for safe autonomous use.

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, concise sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it lacks structured elaboration, such as bullet points or clarifications, which might have improved clarity without adding fluff.

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?

While an output schema exists (which need not be duplicated in the description), the description fails to provide essential context: it doesn't mention that job_id likely originates from launching a design or optimization job, or that this tool complements rf_list_jobs. The description is too sparse to fully enable an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation about the parameters job_id or include_result. It doesn't clarify the meaning of include_result (e.g., what result is, or the impact of setting it to false) or how job_id should be obtained. The tool relies entirely on parameter names, which is inadequate for 0% coverage.

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 clearly states the tool provides progress and result information for a running study or design loop, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rf_design or rf_optimize that launch processes, and rf_list_jobs that likely list jobs. However, the phrase 'study or design loop' is somewhat vague and doesn't explicitly name any sibling or contrast with alternatives.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rf_list_jobs or rf_design. There is no mention of polling patterns, prerequisites (e.g., needing a job_id from a prior call), or when this is the appropriate choice over other status-related tools. Usage context is entirely implied.

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