get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes further by enumerating the state machine (working, cancelling, completed, failed, cancelled), explaining what a sweep's result contains (folder, black or failed shots, current shot message), and stating that reading changes nothing in Kit. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it repeats the read-only point the hint already makes.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each sentence carries useful information about states, waiting, and sweep results. The prose is dense and somewhat run-on, with several clauses chained into single sentences, which costs some readability but not enough to waste space.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned in each phase, the full state list, the wait semantics, and the fallback behavior when job_id is absent. It also pre-empts the sweep-specific output shape, leaving no material gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the wait ceiling of 100 seconds and the meaning of an empty job_id. The description echoes those semantics ('With wait, the call returns when the job ends or changes state', 'with no job_id it reads the running job or the last one') but adds little beyond what the schema descriptions already say, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a job run_script_job or capture_sweep started') and enumerates what it returns: state, runtime, last line, printed lines, result or error, and per-stream output. It explicitly names the sibling tools that create such jobs, so an agent can distinguish it from cancel_job or get_logs without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context: the wait parameter is explained as a way to wait for a long job 'without a call every few seconds', and omitting job_id is framed as recovering the running or last job after conversation compaction. It stops short of naming cancel_job as the alternative for stopping a job or stating when-not to use it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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