get_job_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation (implied read-only) and describes the return structure in detail, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid job ID), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent—important gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, args, returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. However, the 'Returns' section is duplicated (once as a bullet list, once as a sentence), creating minor redundancy. Most sentences earn their place by adding value.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns (detailed bullet list) and the key parameter. For a read-only retrieval tool with one main parameter, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from error handling or authentication context.

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. It clearly documents the single required parameter 'job_id' with its purpose ('UUID of the scheduled job to retrieve details for') and format ('UUID'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. The 'ctx' parameter is not mentioned, but with 0% coverage in schema, the description's focus on the essential parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comprehensive information about a scheduled notebook job', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_job_executions' (which lists executions rather than retrieving job details) and 'create_scheduled_job' (which creates rather than retrieves).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid job ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing jobs vs. getting details), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_job_executions'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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