workbench_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Read') and explicitly disclaims side-effectful browser activity ('no browser calls'). It could add more about authentication or output behavior, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core operation first, then the key scoping constraint ('no browser calls'), earning every word.

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 tool with one required string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return content, and a key behavioral boundary. It is slightly thin on parameter provenance and selection guidance, but overall an agent can invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 for the job_id parameter. Saying 'Read one job' conveys that job_id identifies a single job, but it does not explain the ID's format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to sibling tools like workbench_list. The compensation is minimal.

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') and a clear resource ('one job'), and further specifies the data returned: input hashes and state history. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from browser-oriented siblings with 'no browser calls', so an agent can select it confidently.

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 this tool is for reading a single job's details, and 'no browser calls' hints it is not for browser automation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus workbench_list, workbench_status, or workbench_watch.

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