job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that this is a read-only status query and names the returned information, but it does not mention polling behavior, blocking semantics, failure modes, or whether the job continues running after a status check.

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 sentence with no filler. It leads with the action verb and delivers the core purpose immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter status tool with an output schema, this description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it lacks usage context around the job lifecycle and does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer some details.

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, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id parameter. It only refers to 'a background command job,' which adds minimal context, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid job_id, its format, or its relationship to other job-related tools.

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 a specific action ('Return') and resource ('state and exit metadata for a background command job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like job_output and job_cancel by focusing specifically on status and exit metadata.

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 this tool is used to check on a background command job, but it does not explicitly explain when to use it versus related tools such as job_output or job_cancel. Some context is present, but no clear lifecycle or alternative selection guidance is provided.

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