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 meaningful behavioral content beyond the schema by enumerating what is and is not returned, and 'current state' implies a read operation, but it does not mention permission requirements or side-effect profile explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and return contents, followed by scoping and exclusions in two tight sentences. Every clause carries routing or scope information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fills the main gap by describing the returned fields and exclusions. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though permission and error behavior are left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (job_name) with no description. The parameter name is largely self-evident, but the description adds no format, identification, or addressing guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one job) and enumerates exactly what is returned: description, buildable flag, health, and recent build references. It distinguishes itself from get_job_config and get_build_info directly, so an agent can separate this from its siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with conditions: get_job_config for the XML definition, get_build_info for a specific build. It also states what is out of scope (plugin actions, upstream/downstream job objects), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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