job_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by revealing the 'bounded output tail' behavior and the 'one tracked job' scope, which are not in the annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the structured metadata.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no fluff. Every word earns its place, including the usage caveat and alternative tool mention. This is a model of efficient description writing.

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 read tool with two parameters, rich annotations, and sibling context, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage differentiation. It lacks details about return format or error behavior, but given the presence of annotations and bounded output mention, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity. It doesn't explain what a 'snapshot' contains beyond the output tail, but this is a minor gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It indirectly covers 'jobId' via 'one tracked job' and 'tailLines' via 'bounded output tail'. However, it doesn't explain defaults, bounds, or data types that the schema already contains, and the connection is implicit rather than explicit. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('one tracked job') and output ('bounded output tail'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one' job, versus job_list or job_wait. The mention of 'job_wait' as an alternative further clarifies its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only for explicit status requests') and provides an alternative ('prefer job_wait for completion'). This gives clear direction on choosing this tool over its sibling job_wait, satisfying both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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