watch.job

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: calling this tool '不会重复发起搜索' (will not re-initiate searches), which reassures an agent that the operation is side-effect-free. It does not disclose failure behavior, result freshness, or whether partial results are returned, but the no-side-effects statement is genuine added value beyond the schema.

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 short clauses: purpose first, behavioral qualifier second. There is zero filler, and every token earns its place. The no-side-effects qualifier is packed into the same sentence without bloat.

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 one-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core what and a key behavioral constraint, and return values are presumably documented in the output schema. The gap is workflow context: it does not say where job_id comes from or how this tool fits into the monitoring lifecycle alongside watch.start and watch.jobs, leaving the agent to infer the calling pattern.

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%, and the description adds no explicit format or provenance for job_id. The parameter's role is inferable from its name 'job_id' combined with the description's mention of monitoring jobs, and with only one required string parameter the risk of misuse is low. Still, the description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage with any concrete parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb '查询' (query) and names a concrete resource: '后台监控进度和每项结果' (background monitoring progress and per-item results). The second clause '不会重复发起搜索' helps distinguish it from search-initiating siblings like watch.start or watch.run. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related watch.jobs (plural) or watch.history, so an agent may still hesitate among those.

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 '不会重复发起搜索' implies this tool is for passive status checks rather than launching work, which is a form of routing guidance. But it never explicitly states when to use this tool over watch.jobs, watch.history, or watch.alerts, nor does it mention that job_id is typically obtained from watch.start or watch.jobs. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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