get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that output includes a 'durable manifest path' (persisted artifacts), but says nothing about progress semantics, terminal states, or partial results.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, zero filler, listing exactly what the call returns. Nothing redundant with the name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only gap is guidance on polling cadence and relationship to list_jobs/uvr_status, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 coverage; the schema already explains job_id comes from start_separation or an audio tool. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read a job's state, progress, actual outputs and durable manifest path') that clearly separates it from list_jobs (enumeration) and cancel_job (mutation). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the polling/inspection call after start_separation or separate_audio, but the description never says when to use it rather than list_jobs or uvr_status, nor whether repeated polling is expected.

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