job_get

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

The "[READ]" prefix is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction and the safety profile is already carried by annotations. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context — nothing about error handling for an unknown job_id, pagination, or what detail is returned. With annotations covering the safety side, this is a minimum-viable disclosure.

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?

One lead sentence states the action and scope first, followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 get tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what "detail" comprises or the shape of the response; it does not. Combined with the absence of any failure-mode guidance for an invalid job_id, it is adequate but leaves real 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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: job_id is identified as a Veeam job id sourced from job_list, and target as a Veeam target name from config. It still does not say whether target defaults to the configured target when omitted, which would have made it a 5.

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?

"Return detail for a single backup job by id" gives a specific verb (return detail), resource (backup job), and scope (single, by id). This implicitly separates it from job_list, and the "(see job_list)" cross-reference reinforces the relationship, though it never states the contrast explicitly.

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 only tells the agent where to obtain the job_id; it gives no guidance on when to retrieve job detail versus using job_failure_rca, job_list, or session_get. The "[READ]" tag implies a read context but no when/when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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