get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It describes a read-only operation (retrieve) and details the return fields, including the human_readable_status mapping. While it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects, the action verb 'retrieve' implies a safe operation, and the detailed return spec adds transparency.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, and Returns. It front-loads the main purpose. However, there is minor redundancy: the first two sentences both convey 'get details of a specific job by its ID.' Trimming this would improve conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no annotations, existing output schema), the description provides complete context. It explains the job retrieval, the meaning of human_readable_status, and lists all return fields with types and descriptions. An agent can fully understand the tool's behavior without additional information.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (job_id) with no description. The description fills this gap with an Args section: 'job_id: The ID of the job to retrieve.' This adds full meaning beyond the schema, achieving high semantic value despite the schema's 0% coverage.

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 the purpose: 'Retrieve details of a job by job ID.' It specifies what the tool does (retrieve details) and the resource (job by ID). Among sibling tools like list_jobs or cancel_job, this is distinct and unambiguous.

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 effectively communicates when to use the tool (when you have a job ID and need full details). Although it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of sibling names like list_jobs and cancel_job makes the usage context clear. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a 5.

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