job_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses return payload structure (id, type, retries, dueDate, exceptionMessage, process instance details) which compensates for missing output_schema. Could improve by mentioning 404/not-found behavior.

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 with zero waste: first states the action, second lists return fields. Information is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Reasonably complete for a simple retrieval operation with no annotations or output schema. The description successfully compensates for missing return type documentation by listing fields, though it omits error handling details.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, but description states 'by ID' implying an ID parameter exists. This creates a significant mismatch between the documented requirement and the formal schema (which is empty), potentially confusing the agent about how to provide the identifier.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'job' and scope 'single job by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list operations like 'job_list' or 'job_count'.

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?

Implies usage context through 'by ID' (i.e., use when you have a specific job ID), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'job_list' or how to obtain the ID initially.

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