get_scheduled_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds 'full details' but does not elaborate on return format or limits. This is acceptable for a read operation but does not provide extra behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input method. Excellent structure.

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 has no output schema, and the description only says 'full details' without specifying what that includes. However, for a simple get operation on a known resource, this is generally sufficient. It could be improved by listing example fields, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% (parameter described as 'Job sys_id or exact name'). The description repeats this information ('by sys_id or name') but does not add new meaning or format details, so it provides no extra value 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 'Get', the resource 'scheduled job', and the method of identification ('by sys_id or name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scheduled_jobs (which lists multiple) and create/update variants.

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 specifies the required input (sys_id or name) and implies usage when you have an identifier. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like list_scheduled_jobs, but the context is clear enough for the agent.

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