unreal_validation_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying 'authoritative bounded errors' and the behavioral prohibition 'never restart it', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 entire description is one compact sentence. Every phrase earns its place: 'Read' states the action, 'native validation job' names the target, 'authoritative bounded errors' clarifies the output, and 'never restart it' gives a critical safety guard.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it safely. A minor gap is that 'native' is not defined and the source of job_id is not mentioned, but these are not blockers given the output schema and simple input.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. job_id is a single simple identifier whose role is inferable from the description, but the description does not explain where the ID comes from or provide any additional constraints. The schema's own title 'Job Id' and min/max length cover the technical limits.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies both the resource ('native validation job') and the result ('authoritative bounded errors'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from mutating or job-control siblings such as unreal_validation_start and unreal_validation_cancel.

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 read-only usage and explicitly warns 'never restart it', which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to choose this tool over related validation tools, leaving the agent to infer the routing from the sibling list.

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