Get project job

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description does add value by disclosing the return shape (wrapper plus a Job model) and the specific error types raised. It omits why a "get details" call exposes pagination, scope, pipeline_id, and job_variable_attributes parameters, leaving behavior on those unclear.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the total length is short, but the auto-generated Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding spends its few lines on a vague **kwargs catch-all rather than on the nine undocumented parameters. Nothing is bloated, yet the allocation of space is inefficient.

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?

Placeholder.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: the Args section reduces everything to "**kwargs ... (e.g., project_id, job_id)". It gives no meaning for page, per_page, max_pages, total_pages, scope, include_retried, pipeline_id, job_variable_attributes, or api_parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Get details of a specific job within a project"), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like gitlab_get_project_jobs or gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or clarify how it differs from gitlab_graphql_ops_get_job or gitlab_get_project_job_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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over gitlab_get_project_jobs, gitlab_graphql_ops_get_job, or gitlab_get_project_job_log. The only usage-adjacent content is the Raises block implying project_id and job_id are needed, despite the schema marking zero required parameters.

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