job_output

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the critical disclosure that output is truncated by default and that a full log is never returned, plus the stderr behavior of stream='auto'. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation, though truncation limits themselves are not quantified.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the truncation default so the agent reads the most important constraint first. No filler; only `max_chars` is left unexplained.

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 structure needn't be described, and the key behavioral caveats (truncation, stderr in auto mode) are covered. The unaddressed `max_chars` parameter is the one remaining gap for a 5-param 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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains `grep`, `lines`, and `stream`, but says nothing about `max_chars` (which directly controls the truncation it warns about) and only implicitly covers `job_id`.

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+resource ('Sortie d'un job') and immediately qualifies the default behavior (truncated). It is distinguishable from job_status/list_jobs, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 concrete conditional guidance: use `lines` to see the tail, use `grep` to target, and stream='auto' surfaces stderr when non-empty. It lacks any when-not/alternative-tool routing (e.g. vs read_remote_file), but the operational context is clear.

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