iccap_job_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns an error field and 'latest progress', which hints at asynchronous job tracking, but it does not state whether the call is non-mutating, what happens for an unknown job_id, or whether it blocks.

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 one sentence with no filler, starts with the action, and front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes to defining what the tool returns.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description properly names the return categories but omits details such as how to obtain a valid job_id and the expected shape of the result/error fields. For a one-parameter getter this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single job_id parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining what job_id is, how to obtain it, or its expected format. It only ties the parameter to the tool's general subject by saying 'of a managed IC-CAP job', which adds little beyond the schema's property name.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('managed IC-CAP job'), and the exact data returned (state, result, error, latest progress). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like iccap_job_list, iccap_job_logs, and iccap_job_cancel.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool rather than sibling status-related tools. The verb 'Get' implies it is for inspecting an existing job's status, but the description does not mention how to obtain a job_id or that iccap_job_list is the typical source of job IDs.

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