get_job

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 behavioral disclosure. 'Recover durable job state' suggests reading persistent state, but it does not clarify whether this is a pure read, whether it has any side effects, what state fields are returned, or how it behaves when the job does not exist. The term 'recover' is ambiguous about whether the tool actively restores state or simply retrieves it.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is more under-specified than genuinely helpful: the phrase 'Recover durable job state' is cryptic and does not clearly communicate the tool's basic function to an agent.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain what the returned state looks like, how to distinguish this tool from list_jobs, or what the expected behavior is for missing or invalid job_ids. The lack of any output schema makes this omission more significant.

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 required parameter, job_id, with no description coverage (0%). The description does not mention job_id at all, nor does it explain what values are expected, how to obtain a valid job_id, or how the parameter relates to the 'durable job state' being recovered. The tool description adds no value beyond the raw schema property name and type.

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 states a specific verb ('Recover') and resource ('durable job state'), and the phrase 'across agent sessions and broker restarts' gives it a distinct scope from the sibling tools like list_jobs and get_job_logs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings by name, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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 resuming work after a session or broker restart, which provides some usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use get_job versus list_jobs, get_job_logs, or cancel_job, and no exclusions are stated.

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