Get Latest Run Details by Job Name

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: fuzzy matching (case-insensitive substring), error conditions, run limit (last 50 runs), and return structure. Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which align with the description.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main behavior, then provides usage guidelines, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description addresses all important aspects: fuzzy matching, error handling, run scope, optional parameter behavior, and typical usage with sibling tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description supplements by explaining the 'last 50 runs' constraint and the behavior of includeResults, adding value beyond the schema. However, the Args section largely repeats schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: fuzzy-match a single environment job by name and return full details of its most recent run. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_jobs_by_name.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it errors on zero or multiple matches, advises using find_jobs_by_name first to disambiguate, and notes it only looks at the last 50 runs. This is clear and actionable.

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