get_job

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are cached rather than resubmitted, polling must be spaced by at least 3 seconds, failed observations keep the job alive, and partial results require stating missing pages. These are concrete traits an agent needs that the annotations don't convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then polling behavior, failure handling, partial handling, and the parameter note. There is essentially no filler, though the run-on semicolon structure makes it slightly hard to scan.

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-value documentation is not required, and the description covers the operational edges (poll interval, failure retention, partial results) that matter for correct invocation. The main gap is the absence of any alternative-selection guidance among the job-related siblings.

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 carry the burden. It explains include_attempt_history meaningfully (returns the last 10 old attempts plus total count, full history stored locally), but job_id is left unexplained and only one of two parameters is addressed, so compensation is partial.

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+resource (查询既有TextIn任务并缓存完成结果) and adds the key qualifier 不重新提交, which separates it from a fresh submission. It does not name a sibling like resume_job_observation or list_parse_jobs to fully disambiguate, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives operational guidance for pending/in_progress (wait at least 3 seconds between calls) and for failure (retain the job), which implies polling usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over resume_job_observation, list_parse_jobs, or retry_parse_document, so selection guidance is only implied.

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