common-get-sitecore-job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that — every job is returned with no filtering, and State/IsDone are the fields to inspect — but says nothing about return shape details, result size, or paging, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded, followed by the practical hint on which fields to read. No filler, though the 'takes no arguments' phrasing is imprecise given the schema's 'full' flag.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for describing returns; it names State, IsDone and progress, which is a start, but omits job identity fields (e.g. name/id) an agent would need to identify 'the one you want'. It is adequate but incomplete for a discovery 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 100%, so the single 'full' parameter is fully documented as a diagnostics-only option in the schema itself. The description adds a mild tension by asserting the tool 'takes no arguments', which slightly undersells the one parameter that exists, but adds no new semantic detail 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Gets the current Sitecore jobs with their state and progress'), so an agent immediately knows what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close siblings 'authoring-get-job' and 'authoring-list-jobs', leaving the agent to guess which job-retrieval tool to pick.

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?

It gives implied usage guidance by telling the agent to 'read State and IsDone to find the one you want', which suggests this is a discovery tool rather than a targeted fetch. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing versus 'authoring-get-job' or 'authoring-list-jobs', so the routing decision is left to inference.

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