Get Hermes scheduled job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile well. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'writes redacted receipts' as a side effect of the GET, which is non-obvious and valuable context beyond what annotations provide. Minor omission: doesn't note whether reading impacts the job state (e.g., run counters).

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?

Single dense sentence that packs the HTTP method, endpoint, purpose, and side-effect in a compact form. Slightly overloaded semantically (typed GET, definition + state, redacted receipts) but no wasted words. Could be split into two sentences for readability but is appropriately concise.

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 fetches job definition AND last-run state, and an output schema exists. With strong annotations covering the safety profile, one simple param fully documented, and an output schema present, the description is adequate. The 'redacted receipts' side effect is noted. It could mention what the output schema includes, but the presence of an output schema reduces this burden.

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 100% and the single parameter job_id is documented in the schema as 'Unique job identifier'. The description reinforces that job_id is the path segment target. The schema already covers the param semantics well; the description adds minimal value but the baseline of 3 applies, and the 'scheduled Hermes cron job' phrasing clarifies the resource type being referenced.

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?

Description clearly states this is a GET wrapper over /api/jobs/{job_id} that retrieves a single scheduled Hermes cron job's definition and last-run state. It uses specific verb+resource, distinguishes well from siblings like jobs_list (all jobs), jobs_create/update/delete (mutations), and jobs_pause/resume/run (state changes).

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 implies this is the read primitive for a single job, which is clear from naming, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like hermes_job_status or status_overview that might overlap. Sibling hermes_job_status suggests an alternative status view that isn't acknowledged.

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