get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that status is 'durable' (persisted across sessions) and that a 'final export manifest' appears, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about behavior for unknown/expired job ids or how stage values progress.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the returned fields, with no filler. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 values need not be detailed, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description is therefore not obligated to do much. However, for a job-inspection tool in a 36-sibling environment, the missing link to job_id origin and to sibling tools (get_job_log, list_job_outputs, cancel_job) leaves a real gap.

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% and the single job_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains where a job_id comes from (presumably list_jobs or a generate_* call), which is the one piece of semantics an agent needs.

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 pairs the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('job') and enumerates what is retrieved: durable status, current stage, request, and export manifest. That lets an agent distinguish it from list_jobs, get_job_log, and cancel_job, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the presence of a required job_id and the mention of 'durable status' suggests polling a previously submitted job. There is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on polling cadence, and no statement about when to prefer get_job_log or list_jobs instead.

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