Return the full content-addressed lineage of a completed job: plan, hires (including refused ones with reasons), contributions, reviews, settlements, rail calls (with simulated flags), and synthesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (returns lineage) and enumerates the returned data, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or constraints like job completion requirement.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output scope. It is front-loaded with the key action and then lists specifics, though it could be broken into multiple sentences for readability.
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?
While the description lists returned components, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., job not found or incomplete) and prerequisites (job must be completed). An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but context about when to expect this data is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the job_id parameter beyond implying it identifies a completed job. The parameter is simple (single string, required), but the description adds no semantic detail about its format or usage.
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 the tool returns the full content-addressed lineage of a completed job, listing specific components such as plan, hires, contributions, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools like describe_agent or job_status.
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 the tool is for auditing completed jobs but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: auditing, describing agents, checking job status, listing solvers, solving jobs, and verifying audits. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., audit_job, describe_agent). The naming is clear and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for an orchestrator server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat or missing core functionality.
The tool surface covers agent description, solver listing, job execution, status checking, auditing, and verification. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list all jobs, but the core lifecycle is complete.