get_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the returned fields. It says nothing about whether a missing/expired job_id errors or returns empty, whether status is terminal, or that this does not block like wait_for_job.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with a verb first and the returned fields enumerated after the colon. No waste, though the telegram style leaves behavior unstated rather than over-explaining.

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 no output schema, the description usefully lists the return fields, which is the main completeness win. For a job-polling tool in a family containing wait_for_job and cancel_job, though, it omits error/terminal-state behavior an agent needs to act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; "one job" weakly implies job_id identifies the job but gives no format or provenance (e.g., where job_id comes from, such as submit_video's response). The parameter is largely self-explanatory, keeping this at minimum viable.

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?

"Get one job" states a specific verb and singular resource, and the field list (status, progress %, speed, title, filename, error) makes clear what comes back. The word "one" implicitly separates it from list_jobs, but no sibling is named 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_jobs or wait_for_job, which is the key decision for a job-status tool (poll once vs block until done). The agent must infer that this is a single non-blocking snapshot.

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