get_job

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' and the content listing imply a safe read, and it usefully discloses that slice status and problems (overlaps, off-bed objects) are included. However, it never states read-only semantics, cost, or whether this reflects stale state, which matters for a tool that presumably queries a live modeler.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the two main groupings (beds, objects) are front-loaded. The fragmentary punctuation around the parenthetical lists is slightly harder to parse than a plain sentence would be.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not restate the full return shape, and it still names the key sections. Against a crowded sibling set it stops short of telling the agent how this differs from list_jobs or open_job, which is the one real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The enumerated return fields are a bonus, not a substitute for parameter documentation.

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 enumerates exactly what the call returns: the open job's beds (profiles, settings, objects, slice status, issues) and objects (id, name, bed, size, position, settings). That is specific enough to distinguish it from list_jobs or open_job. It reads as a return-value spec rather than an explicit verb statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_jobs (all jobs) or open_job (open/create a job), despite both being siblings. The phrase 'The open job' implies a scope but gives no explicit routing guidance or preconditions.

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