nayori_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the nine status codes, which helps the agent interpret the result. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and parameters are front-loaded, and the status code list is placed where it is most useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is being read, the allowed asset values, the numeric jobId, and the domain-relevant status codes. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the likely outcome.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It states that asset is 'sbtc' or 'stx' and jobId is numeric, which mirrors the schema's enum and integer type but does not add much deeper semantic meaning. This is adequate but not rich parameter guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('one Nayori job from the escrow contract'), and identifies the key parameters (asset and jobId). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like nayori_open_jobs, which lists jobs rather than reading a single one.

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 makes clear this is for reading a single job by numeric jobId and asset, and the read-only framing implies it is appropriate for inspection rather than mutation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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