Get background job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether reading a job result is non-destructive, whether jobs are consumed or retained after collection, whether the call blocks until completion, or what happens if the job is still running. For a job-result retrieval tool, these are meaningful gaps.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and the originating call are front-loaded, and the no-id listing behavior follows directly.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, it leaves job lifecycle and result-availability semantics unstated, which matters for an agent deciding whether and how to poll for results. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so the single id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description repeats that omitting the id lists all jobs, but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: it collects the result of a background job, and explicitly names the originating sibling call eval_js with background: true. It also distinguishes the no-id case as a listing operation, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after starting a background job via eval_js (background: true). It also explains the no-id behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisite condition is clear enough for correct selection.

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