get_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency on its own. It does convey that the operation is a read via 'Query' and that it returns status/progress/result, but it does not disclose what happens if the job is not found, whether it returns immediately, or whether it can be called repeatedly. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word carries meaning, covering the verb, resource, and expected output fields.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the operation's purpose and the schema handles the argument definition. It only lacks explicit guidance on when job polling is appropriate, but that is a usage nuance rather than a blocking 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention job_id at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. However, the parameter's name ('job_id') and title ('Job Id') make its purpose self-evident, so the lack of additional meaning is a minor but real gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'a background job', then enumerates exactly what is returned: status, progress, and result. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on documents and KBs.

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 use when a caller needs job status or progress, but it doesn't state when to use it versus alternatives, mention polling behavior, or explain its relationship to the document/KB tools. Usage context is left to the agent to infer.

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