job_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for reading (non-destructive), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or handling of large outputs. The 'max_output_chars' parameter is documented in schema but not mentioned in description.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the output components. It is concise but could be better structured with separate clauses for different output types.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of reading job outputs (which may be large or varied), the description is too minimal. It omits details on result format, pagination, error handling, and default behaviors.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not mention any parameters, adding no value beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the gap in undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'completed or in-progress job outputs, free-form result text, diff metadata, and artifact paths.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'job_status' (status only) and 'cancel_jobs' (cancellation).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what it reads, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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