Arsenkin: task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious context the annotations do not: the status is durable (persists across sessions), the intended workflow is polling, and the call is free of cost.

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?

Three short clauses with zero padding; the purpose leads, the usage rule follows, and the cost note is tacked on last where it belongs. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Given a single-parameter polling tool, the description covers purpose, timing, follow-up alternatives, and cost — enough for correct invocation.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so neither schema nor description formally defines `job_id`. The name is largely self-evident and the description implies it identifies the submitted job, but no format, origin, or failure mode (e.g. unknown/expired id) is described.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read durable status of your job"), so an agent knows it retrieves job state rather than mutating anything. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `arsenkin_status`, whose name suggests an overlapping capability; that ambiguity is left unresolved.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ("poll after submit") and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools once the job completes (`arsenkin_get_result` or `arsenkin_result_table`). This is when-to-use plus named alternatives, which is the top of the rubric.

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