Get Job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior for missing/unknown job IDs, whether it polls or returns immediately, or what 'state' includes. Beyond its purpose, it adds almost no behavioral context.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices some useful detail.

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 simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states the core action, and the parameter is self-explanatory. However, it lacks guidance on job_id provenance and error cases, which would make it fully 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?

The schema has one required parameter, job_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention job_id, where it comes from, or how it relates to other tools, so it adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 clear verb, 'Read,' with a specific resource, 'the current state of a generation job.' This distinguishes it from siblings: list_jobs lists jobs, cancel_job mutates, generate_media creates, and get_job reads a single job.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular 'a generation job' and the sibling names, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_jobs or how to obtain a job_id. The description does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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