Show Sub Job

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds concrete behavioral details: it returns a single JSON object, is read-only, and documents common failure modes (401, 403, 404) with their meanings. This helps the agent anticipate errors and side-effect-free execution.

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 concise yet information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then covering usage, return format, side-effect safety, error behavior, required parameters, and API reference. No sentence is filler; each contributes to accurate tool invocation.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately states the return type ('a single JSON object'), prerequisites, error semantics, and endpoint. For a simple show operation with robust annotations, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for the id parameter by stating it must identify an existing parent record and recommending resolution via the list tool, which is useful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Return'), resource ('specified Sub Jobs in a specified Project'), and contrasts with list tools by specifying it's for when you already know which sub job you want and need its full field set. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sub_jobs and create/update/delete sub_job.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'when you already know which sub job you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, guiding the agent to the correct predecessor. This provides clear usage context and an alternative.

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