ksp_editor_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — that it returns progress rather than the whole craft tree — but says nothing about terminal states, behavior for an unknown/finished job_id, or error handling.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core intent but omits the job_id origin, what the progress payload looks like, and how terminal/failed jobs are represented — modest gaps for an otherwise simple tool.

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% for the single required job_id parameter, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on where job_id comes from or its expected format, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: reading the progress of an asynchronous editor build or load job. It implicitly distinguishes itself from ksp_editor_get_craft by noting it does not request the full craft tree, but it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'asynchronous editor build or load job' implies this is used after kicking off a job to poll its progress, but no explicit when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g. ksp_editor_get_craft for the full tree) is given.

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