get_blender_job

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates this is a read-only operation, but it doesn't explain what happens when the job ID is invalid, whether it returns partial results, or any side effects. The simplicity of the tool lowers the risk, but the description adds no extra context beyond the basic read semantics.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no fluff, no redundant content, and is immediately scannable. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is already handled, so the description does not need to explain response fields. For a simple get-status operation, the description covers the core scenario. It doesn't mention error cases or status semantics, but given the tool's narrow scope and the output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. The word 'Blender job' implies that 'job_id' refers to the Blender job identifier, but 'instance_id' is left entirely unexplained. The optional parameter's purpose is unclear—does it specify a particular instance or filter? Because the description does not clarify either parameter beyond what the schema already shows, it falls short for a 0%-coverage case.

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 and object: 'Get the status of a previously submitted Blender job.' It clearly identifies the resource (Blender job) and the action (retrieve status), and it implicitly distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_blender_instances' or 'preview_shot.' The phrase 'previously submitted' hints that the job must already exist, which adds scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'get' and the term 'status.' No comparison with sibling tools is provided, so this is a bare minimum.

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