Get GitLab job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact data categories returned (status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, pipeline), which gives the agent a good idea of what to expect without needing to inspect the output schema. It does not describe side effects or auth requirements, but none are expected for a read-only get operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists the key pieces of information returned. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and efficiently communicates the essential value.

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 description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope (single job) and the type of details returned side, which is adequate given that an output schema exists (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true') and the annotations clearly indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. It could explicitly mention that it returns only one job or that the job must belong to the specified project, but these are inferred from 'for one CI job' and the required parameters. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 50% of parameters: 'project' has a description (ID or path such as group/project), while 'job_id' has none. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond 'for one CI job', which implicitly relates to job_id. Since the schema already documents project well and job_id is self-explanatory as an ID, the description adds minimal nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage and clarity of parameter names.

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 action (Get) and the resource (GitLab CI job), and lists the specific types of information returned (status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, pipeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_log (which focuses on logs) or list_project_jobs (which lists multiple jobs). The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'for one CI job' makes the scope 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about a single CI job serious. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_job_log or list_pipeline_jobs, but the focus on 'detailed status, runner, artifacts, timestamps, commit, and pipeline' sets expectations. The phrase 'for one CI job' signals that this is not for listing or retrieving logs. Guidance is clear for common use cases, even if not exhaustive.

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