get_ingest_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read/poll operation ('poll') and the job source, but does not disclose behavior like whether it blocks, what happens on missing job, or safety guarantees. It conveys the basic operation but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 poll tool with a required job_id and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the operation and source but could benefit from a hint about the response format or polling semantics. Overall, it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning by linking job_id to ingest_apify_twitter, clarifying that the job originates from that specific worker. This adds value beyond the schema, which lacks a description for job_id.

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 tool's action ('Poll ingest job status') with a specific resource ('ingest job') and method ('by job_id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_attribution_job and get_run by specifying it polls ingest jobs from ingest_apify_twitter.

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 implies when to use this tool: to check the status of ingest jobs created by ingest_apify_twitter. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'from ingest_apify_twitter' clause provides clear context for selection among sibling tools.

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