Get a job status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the job status lifecycle (pending → running → completed | failed | cancelled), which is essential for understanding how to interpret polling. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the read-only nature is implicit in 'poll'.

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 two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every piece of information is useful, and the status flow is presented compactly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and job lifecycle for a simple one-parameter polling tool. It lacks details about the response format or error cases, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward; the provided context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 100% with a detailed description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the ID is returned by generate_blog_post, generate_image, etc., helping the agent know where to obtain the required value.

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's function: 'Poll the status of an async Neural Draft job' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes it from siblings by referencing the generator tools that return the job ID, making its role unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: after calling an async generation function like generate_blog_post or generate_image. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear and adequate for this specific polling use case.

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