job_get

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

The description includes a '[READ]' prefix indicating read-only behavior, which is behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds value beyond the schema but could be more comprehensive.

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 highly concise with two lines of purpose and a brief args list. It is well-structured with a clear [READ] prefix and front-loads the essential purpose. Every sentence is necessary and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and parameter sources. It is missing details about return value structure, but that is acceptable for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 compensates by providing meaningful explanations for parameters: job_id is described as 'Veeam job id (see job_list)' and target as 'Veeam target name from config'. This adds context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Return detail for a single backup job by id', specifying the verb (return detail), resource (single backup job), and identifier (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like job_list which returns a list.

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 provides clear context by referencing job_list for obtaining job_id and config for target name. It implies usage context but does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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