get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'query status,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explain side effects, polling behavior, possible statuses, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. This leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral expectations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core function. It contains no extraneous information, but its brevity also contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description omits crucial context about how to obtain a job_id and how this tool fits into the async workflow. An agent would not know whether to call this after batch_scrape or crawl_site, or how long to wait before polling.

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 input schema describes job_id as a required string, but the description adds no explanation of the parameter, its origin, or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, although the single parameter's name is self-explanatory.

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 queries the status of an asynchronous crawl task, using a specific verb ('查询'/'query') and resource. It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crawl_site and scrape_url, which initiate operations rather than report status.

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 usage after an async job is started, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention which sibling tools produce a job_id. There is no exclusion of synchronous tasks or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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