job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains long-polling semantics, the wait_seconds timeout behavior, and the return payload. It does not mention invalid job_id behavior or side effects, but 'poll status' is inherently read-only and the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and behavior. The long-polling explanation and usage context each earn their place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema fields.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, return shape, and long-polling behavior, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. It does not describe error handling for invalid job IDs, but the provided information is enough for an agent to call it correctly in the intended flow.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains wait_seconds semantics and range, and the return shape gives meaning to job_id by tying it to background jobs from transcribe_start or batch_create_clips. Minor issue: description says wait_seconds is 1–60 while the schema allows 0, a small inconsistency.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the status of any background job,' and enumerates the job types (transcription, clip render, batch export). It also includes the return shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only polling tool in the list.

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 explicitly says 'Use after transcribe_start or batch_create_clips(async_mode: true),' giving clear invocation context. It also explains when to use long-polling via wait_seconds, which is actionable guidance for an agent deciding how to call it.

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