ghidriff_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns state and a log tail, which is useful, but it doesn't mention whether the job is still running, whether it blocks, or what happens if the job_id is invalid. The output schema exists and likely covers return structure, but behavioral details like polling semantics are absent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Report the state'), and the log tail detail is included without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 status-checking tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no explicit guidance on how this differs from ghidriff_job_result or ghidriff_job_log, an agent might not know which tool to pick for a given need. The description could also clarify whether the tool is safe to poll repeatedly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that log_tail controls 'trailing log lines' and job_id comes from ghidriff_start_diff, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reports the state of one diff job and includes a short log tail. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ghidriff_job_result and ghidriff_job_log by focusing on 'state' plus a log tail, though it doesn't explicitly name those 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 implies this is for checking a single job's status, and the schema references job_id returned by ghidriff_start_diff. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over ghidriff_job_result, ghidriff_job_log, or ghidriff_jobs, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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