get_job_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that output is YAML rather than a structured object, but says nothing about failure behavior when the job is missing or how large a config can be.

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?

Two short sentences, return format front-loaded, and zero redundant restatement of annotations or name. Nothing wasted.

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 and read-only annotations declared, the remaining burden is small, but the undefined identifier format for 'job' and the absence of any link to new_job_template leave a real gap for an agent composing a new run.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'job' parameter is undocumented in the schema, yet the description never says whether it expects a job ID, name, or slug. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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+resource ('full training config of a job') and adds the return format (YAML), which cleanly separates it from get_job, get_job_log, and list_jobs. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not actively differentiated.

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?

'Useful as a starting point for a new run' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and does not point at new_job_template or create_job as the adjacent path. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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