Check background job

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

Annotations clearly show readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which already convey the safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning 'running state and recent stdout/stderr' as outputs and suggesting a polling workflow, but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a usage suggestion. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with 0 required params no output schema, the description adequately covers listing vs inspecting, state info returned, and a typical usage pattern (polling, then verify). However, it does not explain what 'verify the resulting files or application state' means concretely, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has two parameters (jobId, tailBytes) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic hints. The description briefly implies 'one job' (via jobId) and 'recent stdout/stderr' (tailBytes), partially compensating for the poor schema. But it does not explain what happens when jobId is omitted (list vs inspect) nor the purpose of tailBytes clearly.

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?

Describes two distinct use cases (list all jobs or inspect one) with specific verb+resource pairs: 'List background jobs or inspect one job with running state and recent stdout/stderr'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like exec, start_job, stop_job.

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?

Implicitly suggests polling until completion and verifying files/state, which guides usage in a workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., prefer start_job to begin work, exec for synchronous commands) or exclude alternatives. No direct sibling differentiation is given.

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