get_job_instance

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the fact that it returns details. It does not mention whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., if instance_id is invalid), or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description should cover these aspects more thoroughly.

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 very concise with three short sections (purpose, Args, Returns) that are front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value including steps, timestamps, and status. However, it lacks error behavior details and does not mention any prerequisites or permissions, which would make it fully complete.

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. It adds meaningful context by specifying that instance_id is 'GUID der Job-Instanz (id-Feld aus list_job_instances)', clarifying its origin and required format. However, it does not provide further constraints like expected length or pattern, which would elevate the score to 5.

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 tool returns all details of a single job execution, using the specific verb 'Gibt zurück' and the resource 'Job-Ausführung'. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_job_instances (which lists multiple) and start_job (which creates jobs) by focusing on a single instance detail retrieval.

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 flow by noting the instance_id comes from list_job_instances, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., for full details vs. summary) or when not to use it. More explicit guidance on prerequisites or context would improve the score.

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