Get CAI analysis job

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the meaning of missing/expired jobs and noting that the result schema is unchanged 0.6. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two tightly-worded sentences deliver the core purpose and an important lifecycle caveat without wasted words. The main retrieval statement is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is retrieved, when it is available, and how to interpret missing/expired states. It does not fully spell out the return shape, but no output schema exists to offload that burden.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention job_id at all. The schema only provides a name and length constraints, leaving the agent to infer what a job_id refers to and where it comes from.

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 operation: retrieving canonical CAI job state and the schema 0.6 result after success. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools by name.

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 gives useful context: it is used to fetch job state and results after success, and missing/expired jobs are normal lifecycle conditions rather than analytical failures. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear.

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