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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get detailed information') without covering critical aspects like read-only nature, error handling (e.g., invalid job IDs), response format, or any rate limits or permissions required, which are essential for safe and effective use.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, how results are structured, or potential behavioral traits like idempotency or errors, leaving significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data based on an ID.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'jobId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately defines the parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose as retrieving detailed information about a specific job, which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('job'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_jobs' or explain what 'detailed information' entails beyond basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a job ID), contrast with 'list_jobs' for browsing, or specify use cases like checking job status or details, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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