copy_job_get_definition

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the operation is long-running and writes definition files to a specified directory. This is useful beyond the annotations because it reveals latency and a side effect. No contradiction exists between the read-only annotation and writing output files.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'Get the definition of a copy job' is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives the key behavioral detail about writing files. Each sentence earns its place.

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 description explains the destination of files and notes the operation is long-running, but with no output schema it does not say what the call returns or how an agent knows when the definition files are ready. Given the 'long-running' qualifier, some completion or response detail would make it more 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does reinforce that outputDirectoryPath is where definition files will be written, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: get the definition of a copy job. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like copy_job_get by noting it writes definition files to an output directory, and from copy_job_update_definition by being a get operation. The 'long-running' parenthetical adds useful operational context.

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 someone needs the definition files of a copy job, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over copy_job_get or compare against related get_definition tools. It gives no exclusions or alternative routing guidance. The 'long-running' note is a mild usage caution but not enough to fully guide selection.

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