get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It only says 'Get,' which implies a read-only non-mutating call, and 'latest durable state' adds a nuance of persistence but does not disclose whether it blocks, returns null for missing jobs, or how state transitions work. It provides minimal but non-contradictory transparency.

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 efficient sentence that immediately states the operation and object. No unnecessary words or repetition, fully 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema, and sibling tools for context, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. It is adequate for a simple getter but leaves gaps around error handling and when to prefer this over wait_for_job.

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 explain the job_id parameter. It does not; the only clue is 'for one job,' which is implicit. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no format, example, or meaning beyond the schema property name.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a precise resource 'latest durable state for one job,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_logs (logs) and list_jobs (list). It avoids tautology and is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wait_for_job or list_jobs. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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