aap_get_job_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it mentions output truncation ('truncated output'), format options ('txt' or 'json'), and the inclusion of 'status' in JSON mode. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what to expect.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence use case, a clear args list, and a returns statement. Every part contributes value and there is no filler. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 read-only output fetcher, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, the parameters, and the return format. Minor gaps exist around error scenarios (e.g., job not found, format of JSON status), but annotations and output-schema presence (which we don't see explicitly) reduce the need for more detail.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (job_id, format, max_lines), so the description does not add significant new semantics. It restates defaults like 'default 200' which are in the schema. The description is helpful for quick reference, but it is largely redundant with schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource combination: 'Fetch stdout/stderr output from an AAP job run.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like aap_get_job_events or aap_list_running_jobs. The additional 'Useful for troubleshooting failures' reinforces its intent without ambiguity.

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 a clear context for use ('Useful for troubleshooting failures or reviewing what a job did'), indicating when an agent should choose this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose statement is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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