get_job_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Show the full listing,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavior such as what happens if the job_id is invalid, whether any related data is included, or any side effects. The description adds source context but no behavioral depth.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Show the full listing') and immediately clarifies the ID source. No words are wasted, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and the source of the ID. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The lack of annotations is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive context.

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 schema only provides a title ('Job Id') for the parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying that job_id must be an ID returned by search_jobs or list_saved_jobs, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the parameter format or any constraints beyond that. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('the full listing for a job id') with clear scoping: the job id comes from search_jobs or list_saved_jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs (searches) and list_saved_jobs (lists IDs), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to retrieve full details for a job ID returned by search_jobs or list_saved_jobs, giving contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple get-by-id tool.

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