profilarr_get_job

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the tool returns the run result once the job finishes, which gives insight into how the response evolves over time and what to expect. This is useful beyond the annotation.

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 with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and target, and the parenthetical examples are compact yet highly informative.

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 single-parameter getter with a readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, where to obtain the ID, and the return behavior. No critical information is missing.

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 schema has a single 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by linking the job-queue entry to specific operations that produce an ID. While it doesn't explicitly say 'id is the job ID', the examples make the mapping obvious for a single required integer parameter.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current status of a job-queue entry'), and references concrete sibling tools (profilarr_create_backup, profilarr_sync_database) to identify what kind of job it refers to. This distinguishes it from generic status/health tools like profilarr_status or profilarr_health.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: after creating a backup or syncing a database, where the job ID comes from. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the examples are enough to guide appropriate usage without ambiguity.

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