vastu_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces this and adds the useful fact that billing data can be read without incurring a charge, which is real context an agent would otherwise hesitate over. Beyond that it says nothing about polling behavior, status values, or freshness, so the addition is modest.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only guarantee front-loaded after the purpose. Nothing wasted, though the second sentence is partly redundant with the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the safety profile is covered. Still missing is how an agent obtains a valid jobId and how statuses should be interpreted or polled, which matters for a job-tracking endpoint.

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 0% and the description never mentions jobId, its expected vjob_ prefix format, or where to obtain it. With one required parameter completely undocumented outside the raw pattern, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus the resources returned (job status, counts, billing), which separates it from vastu_job_results and vastu_job_cancel. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the polling/status check for a submitted job. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of vastu_job_results or vastu_job_cancel, and no mention that jobId comes from vastu_job_submit.

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