unreal_functional_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds beyond that: it states the tool does not retry and that it reads 'native result and cleanup status.' This is useful behavioral context that the annotations do not convey, and it is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place: 'Read' (action), 'functional test's' (resource), 'native result and cleanup status' (what it reads), 'without retrying' (key behavioral boundary).

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 one simple parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool reads and the non-retry behavior, and the output schema can document return fields. A minor gap is the lack of explicit precondition like 'after unreal_functional_start,' but this is not essential for a read-only polling-style tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the resource as 'a functional test,' implying job_id is a functional test job ID, but it does not explicitly explain the source or format of job_id (e.g., from unreal_functional_start). For a single required string parameter, this is moderate but incomplete.

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 is specific: 'Read a functional test's native result and cleanup status without retrying.' It names the exact resource and action, and the qualifier 'without retrying' distinguishes it from any sibling that may retry or start/cancel tests. It clearly separates this from unreal_functional_start, unreal_functional_cancel, and unreal_functional_tests.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without retrying' implies a contrast with some retrying tool, but no sibling is named and no usage context is provided (e.g., after starting a functional test, to inspect its final status). An agent would have to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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