check_pipeline_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action ('check status') and job_id provenance; it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, whether polling is expected, what statuses are returned, or how the job lifecycle behaves.

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 extremely compact: one clear opening sentence plus a one-line parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 covers how to get job_id and what to check, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, it omits the return format and status semantics, leaving an agent to guess what 'status' actually looks like.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description adds important meaning to job_id by explaining it is 'the job ID returned by an auto_ pipeline tool.' This tells the agent where to obtain the parameter, going beyond the schema's bare 'Job Id' string.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a running cleanup pipeline.' This distinguishes it from check_transcription_status, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or otherwise call out the distinction.

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 gives clear context: it is for cleanup pipelines and the job_id comes from an auto_ pipeline tool. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus check_transcription_status or command_status, but the cleanup-pipeline wording makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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