get_audio_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that the result carries progress plus terminal evidence and file paths, but says nothing about in-progress vs completed states or whether the job entry is retained.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the returned artifacts lead the sentence.

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 values need no prose, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with the only real gap being guidance on when to poll versus using get_audio_report.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that job_id is the ID returned by capture_audio or compare_audio. The description adds no format, prefix, or validity detail beyond that.

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 (Read) and resource (background capture/comparison job progress), and enumerates the payload (progress, terminal evidence, file paths). It is distinguishable from capture_audio/compare_audio, which start such jobs, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this vs alternatives. The schema note that job_id comes from capture_audio or compare_audio supplies the entry condition, but the description itself offers no polling cadence, no 'use when job is running' framing, and no contrast with get_audio_report.

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