get_deliberation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Get one job', giving no indication that the tool can wait for terminal states via wait_for_terminal and wait_timeout_seconds, or that include_attempts controls whether attempt data is returned. This is a significant transparency gap given the tool's optional behavioral parameters.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It is concise to the point of being terse, but conciseness itself is handled well.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, including behavior-modifying flags like wait_for_terminal, and no annotations to compensate, the description is far too sparse. It omits critical usage context such as blocking behavior, idempotency semantics, and what distinguishes this from tail_deliberation. The output schema fills in return-value structure, but not the operational context an agent needs 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 description adds some meaning by explaining that job_id and idempotency_key are alternative lookup mechanisms. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, the description must also clarify the role of include_attempts, wait_for_terminal, and wait_timeout_seconds, and it does not. The requirement to supply at least one lookup key is only implied, not enforced or explained.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one job'), and it names the two lookup methods (by ID or idempotency key). It distinguishes itself from list_deliberations by emphasizing 'one job', but it does not explicitly contrast with tail_deliberation, which also targets a single deliberation, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a job ID or idempotency key, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_deliberations, tail_deliberation, or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions such as needing a terminal state or using a different tool for streaming.

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