get_job

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds one behavioral detail ('supports nested folder paths') but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or other side effects. For a straightforward read operation, this is minimal but not absent.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It includes the key verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds a critical constraint efficiently.

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?

Given a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description adequately covers purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but is complete for its simplicity.

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 description clarifies that the single parameter `job_name` can be a nested path, which goes beyond the schema's bare property type. This adds meaningful semantics despite zero schema coverage, though it could mention format or examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('full job metadata') for a specified job name, with a specific scope (supports nested folder paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build (build metadata) and list_jobs (list of jobs).

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 use when full metadata of a single job is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, limiting guidance for tool selection.

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