get_active_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., latency, freshness, or what happens if no active job exists). Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate; the description does not contradict them.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core content (current delivery job) and lists the returned fields without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available and annotations covering behavioral safety, the description is complete. It specifies the key content returned, and the output schema handles the exact structure. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 clearly states the resource (current delivery job) and the specific attributes it returns (cargo, route, pay, deadline, on-time status). It unambiguously identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling getters like get_truck_state or get_fuel_status by focusing on the job itself.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving current job details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions, but given the simplicity of a zero-parameter getter, the usage is reasonably inferable from the name and description. It meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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