jumpserver_job_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: cursor semantics, 'never re-consumes old lines', and 'safe to retry' — valuable idempotency and dedup guarantees. It doesn't cover truncation/exit-status behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 dense clauses with zero filler; the cursor default is front-loaded before the full:true override. Every phrase carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must (and mostly does) explain the return shape via nextSeq. It leaves the pagination/truncation interaction with maxChars and end-of-stream signalling unaddressed, a minor residual 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by linking nextSeq (return) to sinceSeq (input) as a resume contract and clarifying full vs. default, adding meaning beyond the per-field schema text.

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+resource ('Read the output of a streaming job') paired with the originating sibling (jumpserver_job_start), and it names the distinguishing mode ('CURSOR READ'). An agent can tell this apart from jumpserver_jobs or jumpserver_job_start without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the default cursor behavior and the explicit alternative (full:true returns the whole buffer), giving clear when-to-use context. It does not name other sibling read tools or state when NOT to use cursor mode, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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