get_queue_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'full details' indicates that it returns a richer representation, but the description does not touch on authentication requirements, failure behavior, or whether a connection must already exist.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded. It contains no filler, redundant qualifiers, or restatement of the tool name.

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 description is minimally adequate for a simple getter, but it leaves important context implicit: how to obtain the requestId (presumably via list_queue_jobs), whether authentication parameters are mandatory, and what 'full details' means given there is no output schema. It is not misleading, but an agent must rely on sibling names and the schema to fill in the gaps.

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?

All five parameters are already described in the input schema, including requestId as the Clockwork request ID, so the schema does the semantic heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to queue jobs beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('queue job'), and 'full details' signals this is the detailed-view counterpart to list_queue_jobs. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_request and list_queue_jobs, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings or mention that the queue job is identified by requestId.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of list_queue_jobs, get_request, or other siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites such as an active Clockwork connection, how to obtain the requestId, or when a queue-job-specific view is needed.

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