get_job

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns details including input/output and error trace, suggesting a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or error behavior, but for a simple single-job getter, the provided behavioral indicators are reasonable. A 3 reflects the partial disclosure.

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 sentence that is completely front-loaded, stating the verb and object first, then adding the key extra details. There is no filler or redundant content; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value. It mentions 'input/output and error trace', which gives a partial picture, but it does not enumerate other job attributes (e.g., status, timestamps, execution time). For a get-job tool, a bit more on what 'details' includes would help. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameter 'id' with zero description coverage. The description merely says 'by id', which essentially restates the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics. It does not describe the format, range, or whether the ID is numeric (integer). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, offering minimal value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('a single job'), and focuses on the scope ('by id'), while mentioning what is included (input/output and error trace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs, which lists multiple jobs. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a job ID and need details about a single job. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_jobs for listing) and provides no exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer the boundary partially.

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