get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context ('verified outputs and per-file failures'), but says nothing about error behavior when the job_id is unknown or what state a job must be in to be readable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler. Every clause earns its place by adding return-content detail.

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 values need not be enumerated in the description, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only shortfall is the unexplained job_id, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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% and the sole parameter job_id carries no description. The description does not explain where the job_id comes from or its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the one parameter that matters.

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 ('Read') and resource ('saved caption job'), and adds scope detail (verified outputs, per-file failures) that separates it from list_jobs, cancel_job, and resume_job. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the single-job read framing is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a saved caption job' implies fetching a specific existing job (e.g., after caption_video) rather than enumerating them, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_jobs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisite for obtaining the job_id, and no stated exclusions.

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