read_job_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation ('Return the tail') and enumerates the allowed file extensions, but it does not mention failure behavior for missing files, invalid extensions, or oversized max_lines. Some useful detail is present, but notable edge-case behavior is omitted.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior in the first sentence. The Args section covers all parameters with no redundant prose, and every line adds useful information.

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 parameterized read operation, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing error scenarios or emphasizing when this tool is preferable to sibling result-retrieval tools.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so: job_name is explained as 'The job to inspect', extension lists the exact allowed values and the important detail 'without the dot', and max_lines defines 'trailing lines'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 states a specific action ('Return the tail'), a clear resource ('a job's output file'), and a precise scope ('tail', 'for inspection'). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_results, list_jobs, or get_job_status, which target different resources or operations.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as get_results or list_jobs. There are no explicit 'use this when' statements or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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