publish_job_get

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits itself. It clearly states the operation is a read and returns current status, implying no modification. However, it does not disclose details like error behavior, required authentication, or whether the job store is local-only, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and core concept. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks richer context like error handling, prerequisites, or why the local store matters. It is adequate but not thorough, given no annotations or output schema to fill gaps.

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 does not mention the 'jobId' parameter at all. Despite the parameter name being self-explanatory, the description fails to add any semantic meaning, such as format or required context, placing the full burden on the schema.

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 'read' to indicate retrieval, specifies the resource 'publish job', and adds scope 'one' and source 'local job store'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_job_create, publish_job_run, and publish_job_verify, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implicitly clear: use this to read a publish job's status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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