get_job_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so effectively by revealing what the response contains beyond the tool name, including whether the job is still running and that the report holds ffmpeg command-line details and errors. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error cases, but for a simple GET-style report tool this is reasonable coverage.

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 sentences: the first precisely defines the operation and return content, and the second adds immediately useful diagnostic context. No filler or redundant detail; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the response contains and offers practical usage context. It does not discuss related tools for searching or filtering reports, but that is outside the core need for invoking get_job_report correctly.

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 input schema already has full coverage: it documents job_id as a required string 'Job ID'. The description adds only the implicit sense that job_id identifies the job whose report is returned. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a job report by job ID') and identifies the exact endpoint. It also clarifies the return contents: the full worker log, metadata, running status, and the ffmpeg command line/errors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report-related tools like search_job_reports or delete_job_report.

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 gives concrete situational guidance: 'read it first when a transcode fails' and explains that the ffmpeg command line and errors live here. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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