tdarr_read_job_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Read', implying a non-destructive operation, but gives no details about potential issues like missing reports, large payloads, or response format. Minimal 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief given the complexity and the need to differentiate from siblings; slightly more detail could be justified.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or how this tool fits into the workflow of job report management. The agent lacks critical context for correct usage.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the relationship between footprintId, jobId, and jobFileId.

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 tool reads a job report, which is a verb+resource, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like tdarr_search_job_reports or tdarr_log_job_report. It lacks specificity about what constitutes a job report.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparison to related tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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