cad_job

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

With annotations supplied (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description only labels the action families, which largely restates the schema enum. It does not disclose the operational traits that matter here: that 'wait' blocks up to timeout_s, that 'log' tails a bounded number of lines, that cancellation semantics apply, or that job_id becomes mandatory for non-list actions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, for a tool with seven nested fields and six actions it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of invocation guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the description is still too thin for the complexity. It leaves unaddressed which parameters each action requires, the blocking behavior of wait, and the 'rerun' action that exists in the enum.

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% and the single top-level 'request' parameter wraps seven nested fields, none of them documented. The description names actions but says nothing about limit/offset pagination, the stream choices, tail_lines, or timeout_s bounds, so it does not compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 uses specific verbs (list, poll, wait, log, cancel) against a concrete resource (server jobs), so an agent can tell this is the job-lifecycle tool rather than a checker or synchronizer like the cad_check/cad_synthesize siblings. It omits the 'rerun' action present in the schema enum, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with cad_status, which also sounds status-oriented.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, nor which action to use for which situation. The enumeration hints at the action space but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions — nothing tells an agent that 'wait' blocks or that 'list' is the discovery entry point.

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