Get a Depot CI job attempt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by telling the agent that the tool returns contextual parent job/workflow/run information and does not return logs or failure explanations, which is essential for setting expectations before invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loads the core purpose and return fields before moving to usage conditions and exclusions. Each sentence earns its place, and the routing to sibling tools is compactly presented without restating schema details or adding fluff.

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?

With only one parameter, a rich description, a robust output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what it does not do, and exactly which alternatives to choose for other needs.

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 has 100% coverage and already describes attemptId as shown by depot_get_ci_run or depot_get_ci_job. The description enhances this by specifying that attemptId can come from depot_get_ci_run, depot_get_ci_job, or a diagnosis, and by clarifying that the same id can be reused with a targetType of 'attempt' for diagnosis, adding useful source and relationship context 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Show one attempt of a Depot CI job') and immediately lists the concrete fields returned, including status, conclusion, sandbox and session ids, timing, and current-attempt flag. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do (explain failure, return logs) and names the tools that fill those gaps.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you hold an attemptId... and need that attempt's own record,' including concrete examples. It also provides clear exclusion criteria and routes to alternatives: depot_diagnose_ci_failure for root cause, depot_get_ci_logs for raw output, and depot_get_ci_job for comparing attempts.

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