get_job_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Summarize' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'recovery-aware run evidence' adds useful behavioral context about how health is evaluated. However, it does not disclose return format, side effects, permissions, or how recovery affects the health conclusion.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and distinctive behavior without wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning: 'current health', 'one job', and 'recovery-aware run evidence' all shape the agent's 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only context for what the agent should expect. It leaves ambiguity around what 'health' means, what role history_limit plays, and what the returned summary contains. For a tool with two parameters and sibling tools offering overlapping health concepts, more contextual detail is needed.

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 for the schema's lack of explanatory text. 'For one job' loosely maps to the required job_id parameter, but history_limit is not mentioned and its effect on run evidence is not explained. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the parameter names already suggest.

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, 'Summarize', and names a precise resource: 'current health for one job'. The qualifier 'using recovery-aware run evidence' adds a distinguishing behavioral angle, and the singular scope separates it from sibling tools like get_server_health and get_recent_failures.

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 phrase 'for one job' implies this is the tool to use when a single job's health summary is needed, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated. It does not explicitly contrast with list_recurring_jobs or summarize_degraded_successes, so usage guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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