fow_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: polling does not start or retry execution, which is the exact misunderstanding an agent could have for a job-status tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and then labels prerequisites and effects clearly. The trailing fow_capabilities help pointer is useful but adds bulk; still, every sentence carries operational content and none is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description supplies prerequisites, read-only effects, and a help route. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only gap being no explicit tie-break against fow_list_jobs.

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 100%, so both job_id and project_id are already documented in the schema, including where the job ID comes from. The description restates the job-ID provenance but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve the status, result or failure of one previously scheduled durable job') and adds a scope boundary ('without starting or retrying it') that distinguishes it from scheduling or list-style siblings like fow_list_jobs. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the prerequisite (use the durable job ID returned when work was scheduled) and clarifies it is a single operation requiring no operation argument. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling fow_list_jobs, so an agent must infer the one-job-vs-many-jobs split.

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