asana_get_job

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the polling lifecycle and returned statuses. However, it does not mention potential errors, timeouts, or how long to wait between polls, which would strengthen transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The purpose, source context, and return values are all front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

For a simple polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure (status and new GID) and usage context. It lacks details on retry behavior or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (job_gid and opt_fields) with descriptions. The description only mentions the role of job_gid implicitly. Since the schema covers full parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not add significant extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool polls an async job by GID, specifies the originating tools (duplicate_task/duplicate_project/instantiate_*), and lists the returned status values and result GIDs. It is distinct from sibling tools which perform actions like creating or deleting, not polling.

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 when to use it (after initiating async operations) and provides context through the GID source. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the polling purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it for this scenario.

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