get_job_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real operational context: it requires Job/ExtendedRead and will 403 with Job/Read alone. That failure-mode disclosure is valuable, though it does not state read-only semantics explicitly (implied by 'Fetch') or output behavior.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the permission caveat immediately after. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the auth caveat covers the main non-obvious risk. Only the job_name semantics and sibling routing remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-param read tool.

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 0% for the single job_name parameter, and the description adds no format or naming guidance for it. It neither compensates for the gap nor misleads, so it sits at the minimum viable level.

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 and resource: fetch a job's config.xml definition. This clearly distinguishes it from generic metadata fetches, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling get_job, which also pertains to a single job.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance versus alternatives like get_job or update_job_config. Usage is only implied by the fact that it returns the raw config.xml, which the agent must infer.

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