photoshop_job_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: the job may be asynchronous or user-assisted, and completed approval jobs expose a one-time token. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by the most important behavioral nuance. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficient: it identifies what the tool retrieves, the async/user-assisted nature, and the one-time token behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter job_id is unambiguous from its name and the tool's purpose, so the lack of an explicit parameter description is not severely harmful. However, schema_description_coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly confirm or elaborate on job_id, so it adds no semantic value 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 names a specific operation—retrieving an asynchronous or user-assisted job—and adds a key differentiator: completed approval jobs return a one-time approval token. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like photoshop_job_cancel and photoshop_job_resume.

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 the tool is used to fetch job status/results, especially for asynchronous or user-assisted workflows, and hints at post-completion token retrieval. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when to call it versus related job tools.

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