get_job_by_name

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. It never states what happens when the name doesn't exist, whether names are unique or case-sensitive, what fields are returned, or that this is a read-only operation beyond the weak implication of 'Get'.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of padding. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but thin: an agent still lacks name-uniqueness semantics and any sense of what the returned 'details' contain. With no annotations to fall back on, more disclosure would help.

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% and the single parameter is documented only as 'Name' with type string. The description's 'by its name' merely restates the parameter name, adding no format, uniqueness, or matching semantics for the agent.

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 (Get) and resource (encoding job) plus the lookup key (by its name), which does distinguish it from the id-based sibling get_job_tasks_by_id. However, it never names that sibling or any other alternative, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_job_tasks_by_id, get_latest_jobs, or any id-based lookup. The only hint is the phrase 'by its name', which leaves the agent to infer the selection condition.

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