convoy_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does state this is a read ('Read'), which implies non-mutating, and discloses the meaningful trait that the record lives on the owning peer (so that peer may need to be reachable). It says nothing about blocking vs. non-blocking behavior, error state when the delivery isn't ready, or permissions, which are real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action before the parameter provenance hint, and every clause conveys information the agent needs. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage across four parameters, the description should do far more: it never describes what is returned, whether the call waits for the delivery, what 'since' does, or how a missing/expired job fails. The provenance hint is useful but insufficient for the complexity of this tool.

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 must compensate, and it partially does by telling the agent where the three required IDs (target_host_id, convoy_id, delivery_id) originate. It adds no format or value semantics for those IDs and completely ignores the optional 'since' parameter, leaving one of four parameters unexplained anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read a previously relayed Convoy delivery') and adds scope ('from its owning peer'), which is more precise than a generic fetch. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with near neighbors like convoy_get_artifact or convoy_ack_job, so an agent must infer the boundary from the convoy_call reference.

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 one concrete prerequisite: the three IDs must come from convoy_call, which tells the agent this is a follow-up read rather than an initiating call. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against convoy_get_artifact, convoy_ack_job, or convoy_cancel_job, so the usage context is only implied.

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