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 details beyond annotations: the null return for missing jobs, redaction/truncation of args/kwargs/meta, and the explicit exclusion of result/exception data.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary behavior, and uses a brief field list followed by an explicit exclusion. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is returned, what is not returned, the null case, and the correct alternative tool. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema has one parameter, job_id, with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It contributes 'by ID' and identifies the resource as an RQ job, but it does not explain the expected format or source of the job ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description could have added more concrete guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return full details for a single RQ job by ID, or null if it does not exist.' It names the included fields and explicitly differentiates from get_job_result by stating what this tool does not return. An agent can select this tool confidently among the siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for full single-job metadata, and use get_job_result when the job's result or exception info is needed. This explicit when/not/alternative guidance leaves no ambiguity about routing to the correct sibling.

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