get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the blocking-wait semantics of wait_s, the ability to re-call to continue waiting, and that the session-only form returns jobs ended in the last day. It does not cover error/timeout behavior of the wait, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with the return profile front-loaded, followed by wait semantics and the session mode. There is little waste, though the parenthetical 'other takes tools wait too' is awkwardly phrased and slightly obscures meaning rather than earning its space.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and covers both invocation modes, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is how waiting interacts with errors or timeouts, but overall it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the operational meaning of wait_s (blocks until the job ends in this call; re-call to keep waiting) and the session-without-id listing behavior, neither of which the schema states. Only the id parameter gains little extra meaning beyond its schema description.

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 states the resource (a job) and enumerates exactly what is returned: status states, progress, time left, log lines, exit code and files. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the write-side siblings run_job/stop_job, though it never names them. The verb is implied ('get') rather than stated, but the resource+return-profile is specific enough to identify the tool.

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?

It explains two distinct calling modes — passing wait_s to block until completion (and calling again to keep waiting), and passing session without id to list recent jobs. That is real usage context. However it never names an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g., vs higgsfield_status, replicate_status, or stop_job), so the routing guidance is only implied.

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