job_get

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

The description includes '[READ]' to indicate a read-only operation, but no annotations are provided. Beyond that, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise: a one-line purpose header followed by three short parameter definitions. No extraneous information, front-loaded with '[READ]' for quick understanding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'detail' is returned (e.g., spec, status), but it does not. It also omits error handling or special conditions. This incompleteness reduces its value for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: name from job_list, namespace optional with default, target from config. However, it lacks examples or format details, so adds only moderate meaning beyond 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 explicitly states '[READ]' and 'Return detail for a single job by name,' clearly indicating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_list (list) and delete_job (delete).

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 usage when a specific job name is known but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like job_list. It provides no exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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