hmc_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It adds that the tool returns status/result, but doesn't disclose behavior for in-progress jobs, missing UUIDs, or whether it polls. Minimal extra context beyond the annotation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only, has output schema), and the description accurately covers its purpose. It could mention how to obtain the UUID, but the overall context is sufficiently complete given the structured data available.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by UUID' only restates the property name (job_uuid) without adding meaning such as where the UUID comes from, format expectations, or examples. It adds little value over the raw schema.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('HMC job') and qualifier ('by UUID'). It distinguishes from siblings like hmc_recent_jobs and hmc_wait_for_job by indicating this is a direct lookup by identifier.

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 context of usage is clear: when you have a job UUID and want its current status or result. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., hmc_wait_for_job for polling) or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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