read_job_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially. It discloses that it searches by PJM naming patterns and returns {content, truncated, path}, but omits important behaviors such as what happens on missing files, how max_bytes affects truncation, and how work_dir influences the search.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, search patterns, and return shape. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy.

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 moderately complex tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and search logic but leaves gaps around work_dir scope and truncation behavior. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for confident invocation in edge cases.

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. It explains job_id and job_name through filename patterns and file_type through .out/.err, but work_dir and max_bytes semantics are not clarified beyond the mention of 'truncated' in the result object.

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 reads stdout or stderr output files of a completed job, with a specific verb and resource. The naming patterns further distinguish it from generic file-read sibling tools like read_file and list_files.

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?

It specifies use for completed jobs and shows the exact filename patterns searched, giving clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling differentiation is strongly implied.

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