get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the distinction between phase_started_at and phase_last_updated_at, defines delayed_start, and includes an important caveat that a supported estimate does not guarantee immediate or successful runtime startup. This helps the agent interpret results and set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 relative to the amount of field-level explanation it provides. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences define key timing/status fields and a caveat. There is little redundancy, though the first sentence is a long list that could be slightly more scannable.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description provides sufficient operational context for a status-retrieval tool. It explains the meaning of the returned timing/delay fields and cautions about estimate reliability. It does not mention how to obtain jobId or direct users to sibling tools for more granular detail, but those are relatively minor gaps for a simple lookup tool.

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 a single jobId with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only loosely ties jobId to 'a specific Jungle Grid job', without explaining its format, where to obtain it, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate with parameter semantics, but it does not significantly go beyond the parameter name.

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 precise verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('a specific Jungle Grid job'), and enumerates the specific data categories returned (status, phase, timing, delay, routing, failure, artifact contract). This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs, get_job_events, and get_artifact, even without explicitly naming them.

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 tool is for retrieving a single job's current status and related metadata, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over siblings such as get_job_events, get_job_logs, or list_artifacts. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the primary use case.

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