Get Quantum Reasoning Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds value beyond them by enumerating the return payload (status, candidates, scores, result, QPU or fallback evidence, usage, receipt ID) and reaffirming the read-only nature with 'without changing the job' — meaningful given there is no output schema.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the action and scope come first and the return inventory follows. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description supplies both the scoping context (tenant-scoped, one job) and the return fields, which is the main gap an agent would otherwise face. It omits any mention of error/not-found behavior or cross-tenant access limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 a single parameter (job_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it as a 'Job UUID'. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (inspect) and resource (one tenant-scoped Lab/quantum reasoning job), plus what it returns. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the plural sibling bee_quantum_reasoning_jobs by emphasizing 'one ... job', but never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use to inspect one tenant-scoped Lab job' implies the retrieval use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of alternatives such as bee_quantum_reasoning_jobs for listing or bee_quantum_reasoning_run for executing. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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