rundeck_get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral details such as required permissions, rate limits, response size, or side effects. The description is straightforward but lacks 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently informs about the return value (full job definition with specific components). It adequately covers the tool's complexity for a simple get operation, though it could mention that the job id is required.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and format), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full job definition', and lists included components (steps, options, schedule, notifications). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like rundeck_get_job_executions, rundeck_get_job_forecast, and rundeck_get_job_metadata.

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 usage when a complete job definition is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rundeck_list_jobs or rundeck_get_job_metadata. No exclusions or caveats are mentioned.

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