get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: 404 causes (never enqueued, aged out, cancelled before finishing) and the fact that an errored job is not always final because a manual retry moves the same id back to waiting. That lifecycle detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then increasingly specific lifecycle facts. No filler, no restatement of the name, and each sentence carries distinct operational value.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (state, result paths, transcript) and by explaining error/retry and 404 semantics. For a read-only three-parameter tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so every parameter including includeProtocol and includeTranscript is already documented, and the schema itself notes that running jobs have no transcript. The description repeats that point but adds no new syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read a job's state, result paths and transcript') and enumerates what the read returns. This clearly separates it from siblings like enqueue_files (creates) and transcribe_file (starts work), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the contexts in which reads succeed (live jobs and jobs the app has already reaped) and what a 404 implies, which tells the agent when a result is meaningful. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-call condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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