Explain job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return shape (state + reason + seff + log tail + suggested fix) and the defaulting behavior when jobId is omitted, which is more than the annotations convey.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short defaulting clause; the output contents are front-loaded before the optional-argument note. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so by naming the five things returned. For a read-only diagnostic with zero required parameters, that is nearly sufficient; only the tailLines control and any auth/profile prerequisite go unaddressed.

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 50% — profile and project are documented in-schema, while jobId and tailLines have only patterns/defaults. The description compensates meaningfully for jobId by explaining it is optional and defaults to the most recent job, or the latest in a given project, which the schema does not say. tailLines is never mentioned, leaving one parameter's purpose to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('explain' a 'job') and enumerates the payload an agent gets: state, reason, efficiency (seff), log tail, and a practical fix. That combination distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like ris_get_job_logs, ris_tail_job_logs, and ris_analyze_efficiency, which each cover only one of those facets.

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 'why-pending / why-failed' framing gives clear context for when this diagnostic is the right call, and the note that jobId is optional with a most-recent-job default tells the agent it can invoke with no arguments. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer raw log tools), so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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