get_job_log

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false); the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that progress-bar noise is collapsed, which affects what the agent will actually see. It does not say what happens when the log is empty, truncated, or the job has not started.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the returned resource and followed immediately by the one non-obvious behavior. Nothing is 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?

The output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but with zero schema description coverage the description should still pin down the two input parameters. It leaves the agent guessing about the job identifier format and tail behavior.

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 compensate and does not: it never clarifies whether `job` is an ID or a name, nor what `tail_lines` means or that it defaults to 60. 'Last lines' only loosely gestures at the tail parameter.

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 resource and scope: the last lines of a job's training log, plus a distinguishing trait (progress-bar noise collapsed). It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like get_loss or get_job_config, but it never names them or explicitly draws the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this versus get_loss, get_job, or list_job_outputs, and no prerequisites such as whether the job must be running or have produced a log yet. The agent must infer all situational context.

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