fetch_job_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is resumable, bounded by max file size, writes to disk (never returns inline), and mentions security constraints on output path (working directory confinement). This is good transparency, though it does not detail error handling or what happens on failure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key action and context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage trigger, and key behaviors (resumable, file size bound, disk write). It lacks specifics on return values or error handling, but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 only 33% (output_path and allow_outside_cwd have descriptions). The description does not add extra meaning for job_event_id, provider_npub, kind_offset, or timeout_secs. The high-level context (resumable, max file size) is helpful but does not compensate fully for the lack of parameter details.

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 states the tool downloads a job result delivered as a FILE via iroh to a local path. It specifies the context of use (after submit_and_pay_job or get_job_result reports a file result), distinguishing it from siblings like get_job_result for inline results.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('after submit_and_pay_job or get_job_result reports a file result'). It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough. The mention of resumability and max file size also guides usage expectations.

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