Explains how background jobs work, their states, and why jobs already sent to SONAR cannot be canceled via the API.
Why background jobs exist here, the states a job moves through, and the one thing the API deliberately cannot do (cancel work already sent to SONAR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: work already sent to SONAR cannot be cancelled. It also signals that the tool is explanatory rather than actionable. It does not say whether the content is static or state-dependent, which is the one remaining gap.
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?
A single sentence with three concrete payload items and no filler, front-loaded with the primary topic (why jobs exist). Nothing repeats the name or the title.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema help tool this covers the essentials: subject matter, states, and the key hard constraint. What is missing is any pointer to the sibling tools that consume this knowledge, which would close the loop for an agent deciding whether to call it at all.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument lookup rather than suggesting any input is expected.
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 states concretely what this documentation tool covers: the rationale for background jobs, the job state model, and a hard API limitation. That is more specific than a title restatement, but it never names an action ('read this before using cw_jobs') or contrasts itself with the operational siblings cw_jobs / cw_job / cw_job_abandon, which sit right next to it in the list.
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 must infer that this is a conceptual companion to the job tools and should be consulted before submitting or trying to cancel work. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use this to inspect a running job – use cw_jobs instead' routing, which is the obvious sibling confusion here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.