get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add genuine behavioral context by stating that both an any-status build and the latest successful build are returned. It stays silent, though, on what happens when the job has no evaluation or no successful build, which matters for a tool that promises two results.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the retrieval scope front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly ambiguous about whether the two builds are returned together from one call, but no sentence 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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return formatting, and it correctly avoids doing so. Still, for a tool that fetches two differently-scoped builds, it should say whether both are returned in one response and what happens when one target is missing.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the burden and already documents job, system ('Only for latest_successful'), and instance. The description's only parameter-relevant contribution is the implicit 'latest successful build' concept that justifies the system parameter, which largely duplicates what the schema already states; project and jobset semantics are untouched.

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 names a specific verb and resource (get a job's build) and scopes it to two retrieval targets: the newest evaluation's build of any status and the latest successful build. That framing distinguishes it reasonably well from get_build (a specific build) and get_jobset (a whole jobset), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '(any status)' vs 'latest successful build' contrast hints at two distinct retrieval intents, which helps an agent pick this over get_build. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_build, get_jobset) for drilling into a single build or a whole jobset.

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