Get command job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of job types, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior like error responses or what happens with invalid job IDs. Given the annotations, it is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only getter with one parameter and an output schema present (though not shown). The description covers the input scope and job types. The presence of an output schema means return format need not be described. The description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly; only minor details like error behavior are absent, which are likely in the output schema.

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 only one parameter, job_id, which is self-explanatory from its name. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any additional meaning or format details for the parameter. The parameter name is intuitive, so the description's silence is acceptable, but it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job status'), and explicitly enumerates the job types it covers ('unified command, test, Codex, or Codex Turn'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_codex_job and get_codex_turn_status, making it clear this is the general status endpoint.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific siblings (e.g., get_codex_job, get_codex_turn_status). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that 'unified' implies general coverage. This is a clear gap for a tool with multiple similar siblings.

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