get_job

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

With no annotations, the description states the tool returns a raw API response containing all job fields, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or mention any permission/rate-limit requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps for a get operation.

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 tight: two sentences plus a brief arg list, with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is stated first, and the alternative is noted succinctly.

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 (2 required params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, alternative, and parameters. It stops short of detailing potential error responses or the exact structure of the 'raw API response', but it is adequate for selecting and invoking the 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear one-line explanations for both job_id and folder_name, resolving the ambiguity of the parameter titles. This sufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specific verb 'Get' plus resource 'full details for a specific job by ID' and explicitly distinguishes from diagnose_job, making its purpose unambiguous. The 'raw API response' qualifier further clarifies the exact nature of the output.

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 states when to use diagnose_job instead: when needing to understand why a job failed. This provides a clear alternative and implies get_job is for raw full job details, effectively differentiating among siblings.

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