get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing what data is returned (log tail, estimates, output locations) and that status is persistent. It omits whether the call blocks or must be polled, and whether completed jobs remain readable.

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?

One dense sentence with the verb and return payload front-loaded and no filler. The comma-separated return list is efficient, though slightly run-on.

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 enumeration of returned fields is valuable and mostly fills that gap. However, the definition leaves out how to obtain job_id and what happens for an unknown or expired job id, which matters for a single-required-parameter lookup tool.

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% and the single parameter job_id has no description anywhere. The tool description never mentions job_id, where to obtain it (presumably from start_slice or compare_candidates), or its format, so it fails to compensate for the complete schema gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the resources returned (status, log tail, estimates, output locations), but never clarifies what a "job" is or that jobs are produced by start_slice/compare_candidates. The link to siblings is only implicit in the phrase "slice or comparison status", so an agent can infer but not confirm the distinction from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The description doesn't say this is the polling companion to start_slice/cancel_job, nor when to prefer it over inspect_project or list_options. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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