get_index_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, the description does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid job_id), or whether the operation is safe. For a simple getter, the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and the resource ('current state of an index job'). It is efficiently worded with no redundant information, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the possible states, which tells the agent what to expect in the response. It does not mention error handling or the exact return format, but for a basic getter this is sufficient. No critical missing context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 does not explicitly mention job_id or its role. The description only says 'an index job', which indirectly refers to the parameter but does not explain its format, constraints, or how it relates to the job. The schema only lists the parameter as a string with a title, so the description adds little semantic value for the 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current state of an index job', and lists the possible states (queued/running/done/failed). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_index_jobs (which lists all jobs) and wait_for_index_job (which blocks). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it loses a point for not being more explicit.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you have a job_id and want its current state), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools, an agent might confuse it with list_index_jobs or wait_for_index_job. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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