get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that the job is asynchronous, implying non-terminal statuses, but says nothing about terminal states, polling, expiry, or error conditions.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally helpful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation detail beyond readOnlyHint, so the description should carry more of the load. It does not describe what status values are returned or how to obtain a job_id, leaving an agent with real gaps for a job-polling 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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a regex pattern. The description does not explain where job_id comes from (e.g., returned by build_camera_probe or run_camera_validation) or what form it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('asynchronous build/capture job status'), which is specific enough for an agent to know it fetches job state. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'asynchronous' faintly implies this is polled after launching a build/capture job, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, polling cadence, or named alternative. It sits at the same level as a bare 'update settings' style description.

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