dcs_report_job

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the "[READ]" prefix is redundant restatement. Beyond that, the description says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent job_id, whether job state is live or historical, or what fields a job state contains. With annotations covering safety, the description still leaves the substantive behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource stated immediately. It is terse but not padded; the only criticism is that the terseness comes at the cost of information rather than being efficient.

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 one-parameter lookup with annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the returned job state and the relationship to dcs_report_jobs. Neither is present, so an agent knows only that the tool reads something called a report job state.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does not: it never mentions job_id, where the ID comes from, or whether it must reference an existing job. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but no meaning is added.

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?

"Read one report job state" gives a verb (read) and a resource (report job), and the word "one" signals singular retrieval, which implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling dcs_report_jobs. However, "state" is vague about what is actually returned, and the description never names the list sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than dcs_report_jobs (list) or dcs_reports. The agent must infer from the tool name that this fetches a single job by ID; no prerequisites or alternatives are stated.

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