Get one job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates the returned detail categories, which partly substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about behavior when the job name is unknown or invalid.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by listing return contents. It is arguably too compressed for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but every word is used.

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 field enumeration is the agent's only signal about return shape, and it delivers that well. The remaining gap is the semantics of the required `name` argument, which neither schema nor description explains.

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?

The single `name` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry that weight. "one job" implies `name` identifies the job, but nothing clarifies whether it is an exact job name, whether patterns are accepted, or what happens on a miss.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Show details for one job") and enumerates the kinds of detail returned (schedule, command, last run, live resources, retry/slot state). The singular "one job" implicitly separates it from cron_list_jobs, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set (cron_get_job_resources, cron_get_job_trends, cron_tail_job_logs) that overlaps with the listed fields. The agent must infer that live resources are also available from a dedicated tool.

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