get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns per-step input/output/error and can reveal errors from otherwise successful jobs, which is key behavioral context. It does not discuss auth or error responses, but the core behavior is substantially explained.

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, well-constructed sentence. It front-loads the primary action and then elaborates with a clarifying em-dash clause. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter fetch tool, the description adequately conveys the return focus (per-step I/O and errors). The lack of parameter explanations and the absence of an output schema are gaps, but the tool's simplicity and the description's clear behavioral disclosure make it reasonably complete.

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 schema lists two required parameters (recipe_id and job_id) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters or how they relate to the job being fetched, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone. Given 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' targeting 'one job's per-step input/output/error', clearly distinguishing it from list_jobs and other job-related tools. It also highlights a unique capability: catching errors hidden in a 'succeeded' job, which no sibling tool mentions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to inspect the detailed per-step input/output of a single job and uncover errors hidden in catch blocks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_jobs, but the sibling context makes the intended use case evident.

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