quantum_job

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the call is non-blocking by default and large result sets are explicitly flagged as truncated with a 20-PUB cap. It could still say what happens if the job is still queued (empty vs partial result).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then default behavior then result shape. No filler; the truncation note could arguably move earlier but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return-shape detail is not required, and the description adequately covers blocking behavior and truncation. The main residual gap is the meaning of 'instance' and how it selects a target, which neither schema nor description explains.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the default non-waiting behavior (wait_seconds) and the result-size limit (max_counts/PUB cap, include_results), but leaves 'instance' and the exact relationship between max_counts and the 20-PUB truncation 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?

States a specific verb and resource: read a job's status and results. It implicitly contrasts with quantum_jobs (listing) and quantum_cancel_job, though it never names a sibling explicitly and the single-job-by-id scope is only implied by the required job_id.

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?

"Default does not wait for queued work" hints that wait_seconds is opt-in for polling, but it never states when to use this versus quantum_jobs, quantum_preview, or a retry pattern. Guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions are given.

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