open_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Open ... to keep working on it' hints at session/active-state semantics but never says whether this mutates server state, requires exclusive access, fails if another session holds the job, or what 'open' does to an already-open job.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the pointer to list_jobs placed inline. Nothing is wasted.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the list_jobs pointer covers discovery. Still, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about state effects and the accepted value format.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in both schema and description. It is unclear whether 'name' is a human-readable job name, an identifier, or a path, and the reference to list_jobs only weakly implies where the value comes from.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open an existing job') and clarifies the intent ('to keep working on it'), which separates it from new_job and list_jobs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_job, leaving the open-vs-get boundary ambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(see list_jobs)' gives a discovery path for finding the job to open, which is genuinely useful. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_job, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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