list_job_outputs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the outputs are checkpoint files and sample media returned as local paths, which helps the agent understand what kind of data comes back. It does not discuss job-state prerequisites or empty-output behavior, but that is a minor gap given 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the key output types and ends with the important 'local paths' detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly adequate because it explains what the returned files are. However, it leaves the 'job' parameter under-specified and gives no usage guidance relative to sibling job-inspection tools, so it is not fully complete.

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% for the single required 'job' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It only repeats that outputs are produced by a job, without clarifying whether 'job' is an ID, name, path, or other identifier format.

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 resource more than the name alone: checkpoint .safetensors files and sample media produced by a job, returned as local paths. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_log or get_loss, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or use the verb 'list'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_jobs, get_job, get_job_config, or view_samples. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'produced by a job', leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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