job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does a strong job by disclosing the exact return contents, including pid/returncode, simulated time vs tmax, percent, step counters, throughput, projected finish time, particle counts, and the Run.out tail. It does not explicitly state that polling is side-effect-free, but "poll" and the data returned convey a read-only status 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a dense, useful list of return values. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete. It over-delivers on return-value detail and clearly explains the polling behavior. The main gap is not explaining job_id provenance or when exactly to call this relative to run_case, but these are minor for a status-polling tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single required job_id parameter. It does not mention job_id by name, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from run_case). The tool's overall purpose implies job_id identifies a background job, but that is only indirect and does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Poll a background solver job". It enumerates exactly what the status digest contains (state, pid/returncode, progress counters, throughput, etc.), which makes it distinct from siblings like run_case and validate_dambreak.

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 clearly establishes the polling use case and implicitly distinguishes it from launching (run_case) or validating (validate_dambreak). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state that job_id should come from a previous run_case call, but the context is clear enough for this simple status tool.

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