Read incremental status output for a managed IC-CAP job. Provide a job ID to retrieve new log entries, and use an offset to fetch updates from a specific point.
Read incremental IC-CAP status output for a managed job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not explain what 'incremental status output' means, how offset affects results, or what the response contains. Some behavioral context is provided, but meaningful gaps remain.
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 a single well-formed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy.
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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not clarify offset behavior, output structure, usage context, or how it relates to sibling job/status tools. An agent would likely need to infer important calling details.
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 compensate. It adds no meaning for job_id or offset. The word 'incremental' weakly hints at offset semantics, but the description does not explain whether offset is in bytes, lines, entries, or something else.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and a specific resource: 'incremental IC-CAP status output for a managed job.' It is clear enough to distinguish from general tools like iccap_job_get or iccap_status_get, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like iccap_job_get, iccap_job_list, or iccap_status_get. The description does not state whether this is for polling, debugging, or what conditions make it the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.