job_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two traits beyond the schema: the returned log is bounded (tail-only) and a running/unknown state is not a green light to redispatch. It omits whether the call is read-only/idempotent, what happens if job_id is unknown or expired, and whether the receipt is durable after completion.

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 terse sentences with the operation stated first and the caution second; both earn their place and there is no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a 0%-documented schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves real gaps: the meaning of "receipt," the identity semantics of job_id, and the failure mode for unknown or pruned jobs.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. "Bounded log tail" clarifies that log_lines controls tail length (versus, say, full log retrieval), but job_id is never explained — whether it is the job's own id, a workflow id, or a receipt handle — leaving the required parameter ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and two concrete resources ("persistent receipt" and "bounded log tail"), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not name or contrast itself with the related siblings like job_reconcile or workflow_status, and "persistent receipt" is somewhat in-house jargon an agent may not resolve.

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 line "Running/unknown is not authorization to redispatch" implies a workflow rule (poll/verify via this tool rather than relaunching), which is a useful hint. But it never explicitly says when to call job_get versus job_reconcile, workflow_status, or standalone_launch, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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