describe_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about job lifecycle and content (status, tasks, metrics, results), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any permissions, error behavior, or other side-effect-relevant traits, leaving notable gaps for a tool without annotation support.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second adds useful background without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no padding.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose and what the returned job information covers. It omits details like error handling or access requirements, but for a read operation with a well-defined output schema, these are not critical. It is adequate, but a brief note on when to use it (e.g., after retrieving a job ID from get_jobs) would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with the schema by referring to a 'specific job' and the use of object_id, but it does not add deeper semantic detail beyond the schema's own description ('The ID used to retrieve the job'). It provides context about job creation but not about the parameter's format or constraints.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific job.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating the comprehensive contents (status, tasks, metrics, results) which sets it apart from narrower tools like get_job_metrics or listing tools like get_jobs.

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 context: use this tool when you need detailed information about a specific job. It explains that jobs are created automatically when workflows execute, implying the job ID comes from workflow executions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_job_metrics for metrics-only needs, so it falls short of a 5.

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