read_job_output

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

Although annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on error, output format, or if the call is blocking. The stream parameter is mentioned, but that is already in the schema.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from a more informative yet compact format.

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?

With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the tool needs a richer description. It does not specify return values, pagination, or edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 must compensate. It only explains the 'stream' parameter (with values) but ignores 'job_id' (required) and 'tail_lines' (default=200). Inadequate for a 3-parameter tool.

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 tool reads job output and specifies the stream parameter values ('stdout' | 'stderr'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' and 'read_editor_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when to choose stdout vs stderr. The description is purely functional.

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