job_get

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is the long-poll behavior of waitSeconds and the explicit statement that a transport failure leaves the job unchanged, which is genuinely useful for retry decisions. It stops short of documenting auth requirements or polling cadence.

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 dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by one short clause on failure semantics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant detail (settled-state waiting) is placed mid-sentence where it is still prominent.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage the description should have covered what jobId and projectId are and what locale affects; that gap leaves the definition only minimally complete for a 4-parameter read tool.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains waitSeconds (its purpose and 20s cap). The required jobId (64-hex pattern) and projectId, plus the locale enum, receive no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 ('Query') plus resource ('remote job state') and enumerates what comes back (per-step results, PASS/FAIL/NOT_RUN summaries), which clearly separates it from job_logs, job_cancel and job_submit. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied through content rather than stated.

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 'waitSeconds (max 20) waits for a settled state' clause implies a polling/long-poll usage pattern, and the transport-failure note hints at retry semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-job_logs or job_cancel guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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