get_job_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that messages are ordered chronologically and include both agent and human messages, which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and some behavioral aspects, but lacks details on output format or error scenarios, which could be helpful for an AI agent. With no output schema, more information on return values would improve completeness.

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, clearly documenting both parameters (job_id and agent_key). The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all messages for a job, ordered chronologically.' It specifies the resource (messages for a job) and the verb (get), but does not explicitly distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'send_job_message' or 'get_job_status', which is why it scores 4 instead of 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to check for replies after sending a message or receiving a webhook notification.' This gives practical guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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