Get PJM job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying it returns output paths and supports both current and historical jobs. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or potential errors, but for a read-only get operation with strong annotation coverage, the added context is adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get details and output paths') and includes a crucial qualifier ('current or historical'). No wasted words.

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 simple get operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the core function and return focus (details and output paths). There is no output schema, but the description hints at the return content. It does not provide exhaustive details, but the tool's simplicity does not demand more.

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?

There is one parameter, jobId, which is self-explanatory from the name. The schema provides a pattern for allowed formats. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but given the tool name and the phrase 'one job,' the meaning is unambiguous. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter's purpose is evident.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details and output paths for one current or historical job.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs (list all) and get_job_stats (statistics) by specifying it targets one job and includes output paths.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific job, and the phrase 'current or historical' clarifies temporal scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_job_stats, but the 'one job' phrasing clearly differentiates from list_jobs. Clear context without explicit exclusions.

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