查询远程后台任务

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the specific outputs (status, process group, exit code, limited tail log), and the mention of 'limited' tail logs provides additional context about response size constraints. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output details. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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, annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools that provide context. However, the description is minimal and does not cover parameter usage, prerequisites (e.g., job must be running), or typical scenarios. It is adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain individual parameters like alias, job_id, tail_lines, or max_log_bytes. Although the mention of 'tail logs' hints at tail_lines, it does not clarify parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 background job status, process group, exit code, and limited tail logs, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_job_list (list all jobs) and ssh_cancel_job, making its function unique and clear.

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 (querying a specific job's status via job_id) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_job_list or ssh_check. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters.

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