job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that 'get' is summary-first and can include the full JSON definition with includeDefinition=true, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the behavior or side effects of other operations such as build, buildAndWait, wait, or abort (e.g., whether abort is destructive, whether build triggers execution, what log returns).

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the full list of operations, and the second adds a key behavior note. There is no wasted text, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (7 distinct operations), empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what each operation does, what parameters they accept, or what the agent should expect in return. Only the 'get' nuance is covered, leaving most of the tool's behavior undocumented.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description must add all parameter meaning. It does add valuable context by mentioning the 'includeDefinition' flag for the get operation, which is not present in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's minimal information, though it only covers one of potentially many hidden parameters.

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 clearly identifies the resource (jobs) and enumerates the specific operations: list, get, log, build, buildAndWait, wait, abort. This is a specific verb+resource bundle that distinguishes the tool from sibling tools for other resource types (project, dataset, recipe, etc.).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives a behavioral note for 'get' (summary-first, includeDefinition parameter), but does not specify when to use 'job' vs sibling tools or when to prefer one operation over another. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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