Get a Depot CI job

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly says the tool 'does not explain the failure and does not return logs,' and that it returns the attempt and sandbox ids needed to drill in. This goes beyond the annotations by setting clear expectations about output boundaries and limitations.

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?

Three concise paragraphs, each with a distinct role: overview of capabilities, when-to-use guidance, and exclusions/alternatives. The core statement 'Show one Depot CI job' is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by providing routing or behavioral context without repetition or 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?

The single required parameter is fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety and idempotency profile, and the description adds usage conditions, source of the jobId, and sibling routing. There is no missing information an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema has only one required parameter, jobId, with 100% description coverage, and the schema description already says it is 'as shown by depot_get_ci_run (jobId=...) or a diagnosis.' The description repeats this source context but adds no new semantic detail about format, constraints, or behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Show one Depot CI job' and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, conclusion, recorded error, runner labels, timing, and every attempt with the attempt and sandbox ids. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like depot_get_ci_attempt and depot_get_ci_run by scope and 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when you already have a jobId...' and what it is for: understanding retries, current attempt, failures across attempts, timing, and location. It also names alternatives for other needs: depot_diagnose_ci_failure for root cause, depot_get_ci_attempt for a single attempt, and depot_get_ci_run for the whole run, plus clarifies what it does not do.

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