job_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content beyond that by saying the payload is a 'full timeline' plus cross-entity links and artifacts, i.e. it is a heavyweight detail fetch rather than a summary. It says nothing about size, pagination, or behavior when the job id doesn't 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler — the important part (full detail incl. events/links/artifacts) comes first. It reads as a sentence fragment, which is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety; what remains is adequate for a one-parameter read tool. The main shortfall is absent guidance on when to prefer it over job_list or job_event.

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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented with a format example ('j-1a2b3c4d') and provenance. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, 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?

The description states the resource ('One job') and enumerates what the response carries — timeline events, links to test runs/builds/deploys/evidence, and artifacts — which is specific enough to separate it from job_list's collection view. The verb is only implied ('One job with...'), so it stops short of a clean verb+resource phrasing.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to reach for this versus job_list, job_event, or job_screenshots. The only routing hint ('Job id from job_enqueue/job_list') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives no usage guidance.

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