get_job

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses the two terminal states (complete with output object, failed with error object), indicates that polling is required, and notes the interval advice. It doesn't mention non-mutating behavior explicitly, but 'fetching state' implies a read-only operation. At best, it could enumerate all statuses (e.g., pending/running) but that's a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then a compact description of return states and polling cadence. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 tool has only 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully covers what the tool does, how to call it, what to expect in the response, and how often to poll. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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 coverage is 100% — the single id parameter is fully described as 'The job id returned by submit_job.' The description adds minimal extra meaning with 'previously submitted' but doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with 'Fetch the current state of a previously submitted job' — a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from siblings (submit_job creates a job, list_jobs lists jobs). It also narrows the scope to previously submitted jobs via the id parameter.

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?

Provides explicit polling guidance: 'Call this repeatedly (every 30-60s is plenty — jobs take minutes, not seconds) until status is one of complete/failed.' It implies when to use this tool (to check a specific job's status) rather than list_jobs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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