get-job-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior for unknown or deleted job IDs, response size for jobs with many tasks, or pagination—all relevant for a details endpoint.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the raw 'Args:' docstring block repeats the schema verbatim and the fragment '- List of integer job IDs' is ungrammatical and adds nothing. The structure looks like an unedited function docstring rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the tool has only one simple parameter. Still, for a details-fetching tool with no annotations, more context about error behavior on invalid IDs and the batch semantics would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is self-explanatory (job_ids, array of integers, required). The description restates 'List of integer job IDs', confirming batch input, yet adds no format, ordering, or limit details beyond the 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+resource ('Get job details') and names the returned content ('settings and tasks') scoped by job id, so an agent knows what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like get-jobs or get-job-runs, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get-jobs (listing) or get-job-runs (execution history). The only implied guidance is that a job id is required, which the schema already states.

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