Job output

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and not open-world, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool returns only new output since the cursor and that it returns a new cursor for continued reading.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then states the key return value, 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?

The core operation is conveyed and the output schema plus readOnly annotations reduce some burden. However, the description lacks usage guidance and does not explain important parameters like stream or limit, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only loosely clarifies the role of the cursor through 'since cursor' and 'returns new cursor,' while leaving job_id, limit, and stream semantics unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read new job output since cursor.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like job_status and job_wait, which address status or waiting rather than reading output. The cursor-based incremental behavior is immediately identifiable.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or intended call patterns. The context of polling incremental job output is implied by 'since cursor' but not stated.

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