get_job_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation and the listed fields give some sense of the response, but it does not mention side effects, failure behavior, authorization requirements, or whether any build is triggered.

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. Each listed item adds meaningful detail about the return contents, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of what is returned. It could be more complete by explicitly noting how to refer to the job and by contrasting with build-level tools, but it is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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 only contains job_name, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to clarify the parameter. It indirectly ties the parameter to 'a job' but never names it, explains its format, or notes that it identifies which job to inspect. The simple parameter name carries much of the weight.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Get', and names the resource, 'job', with a concrete list of returned contents: description, parameters with defaults, last build numbers, and health. This clearly distinguishes it from build-scoped siblings like get_build_info and get_build_log.

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 says what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, such as get_build_info or list_recent_builds. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so the agent has to infer usage from the name alone.

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