get_job_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the operation's safety profile. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the job must be completed, which is not in the annotations. It does not describe what happens if the job is not completed, but the additional context is valuable beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and object. There is no redundant information, fluff, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the purpose, the prerequisite of a completed job, and the safety profile via annotations. Minor gaps (e.g., behavior when job is not completed, or content of the log) are largely covered by the output schema and the simple nature of the operation.

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 100% and the only parameter, job_id, is described as 'ID of the job.' The tool description itself does not elaborate on this parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'the log of a completed job'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_status (status vs. log) and list_jobs (list vs. single log). The phrase 'completed job' adds specificity beyond a generic 'job log'.

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 implies the tool is for completed jobs only, providing a conditional usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for running jobs use get_job_status). The guidance is only implicit, not explicit.

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