Inspect Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds two non-obvious traits beyond that: the blocking wait semantics and the fact that an interrupted job stays interrupted and must be re-triggered. It does not cover job retention or how long artifacts remain retrievable on an open-world backend.

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, no filler; the resource scope comes first and the wait/interruption caveats follow in a logical order. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and the description covers job types, blocking behavior, and the interruption caveat. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies when to inspect versus list_jobs or query_results for status, which matters given nine siblings.

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% — both jobId (source tools, UUID format) and waitMs (max 60000, prefer a single call over polling) are fully documented in the schema. The description's waitMs sentence largely restates the schema's 'prefer one call with waitMs 60000 over repeated polling' note, so it adds little beyond intent framing.

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?

Specific verb (inspect) plus resource (prepare/solver job) and the three things it returns: status, diagnostics, and available artifacts. It covers both job families, which helps distinguish it from narrower siblings, but it never names list_jobs, query_results, or cancel_job to route the agent away from them.

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?

Explicitly advises passing waitMs to block for a terminal state 'instead of polling', which is real usage guidance against an alternative behavior. It also flags that interrupted jobs are not resumed automatically, preventing a wrong assumption. No explicit when-not guidance relative to sibling tools like list_jobs or query_results.

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