job_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and it does disclose the content of the result (check results and diff summary). But it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like job completion, or what happens for jobs that have not yet produced a review.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is provided in the second sentence without redundancy.

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 output schema covers return value shape, so the description does not need to explain that. It provides the core purpose and usage sequence, but it leaves the agent_name parameter unexplained and does not state any prerequisites, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'a job' generally and never explains job_id or the agent_name parameter. The agent must infer what agent_name means and how it affects the review.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a mechanical review verdict for a job, including check results and diff summary.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling job_result by naming it directly and explaining the difference in what it returns.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it: 'Call this before job_result to skip reading the output of work that did not pass.' This gives clear sequencing and rationale. However, it does not explicitly address other related siblings like job_status or job_wait.

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