Get Scheduled Job Output

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns only the most recent run (not history), and it can be scoped to server or site level. It doesn't discuss permissions or response format, but for a read tool that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences with the resource and scoping constraint front-loaded, followed by the usage rationale and the id source. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

For a read-only log-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (latest run output), how it is scoped, and where the id comes from, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the exact response shape is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the site-level vs server-level distinction and the tail_lines cap. The description mostly restates the server/site scoping rule and adds little syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('the output of the most recent run of a scheduled (cron) job') and immediately disambiguates scope: server-level, or site-level when `site` is passed. It also distinguishes itself from the adjacent listing tool by pointing at list_scheduled_jobs for the job id.

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?

Gives a clear motivating use case ('to see whether a schedule is actually succeeding rather than just firing') and tells the agent where the required id comes from. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit condition for when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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