wafle_ai_jobs_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds context by itemizing the returned fields (input_payload, output_payload, tokens, cost, etc.), which helps set expectations. Yet it omits error behavior or scope constraints (e.g., jobs are per-store), so it only partially discloses behavioral traits.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then list the key return fields. No filler or redundancy, every word earns its place.

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 helpfully lists the main response fields. However, it fails to clarify the relationship between the slug and id parameters (e.g., whether the id is scoped to the store) and does not mention what happens if the job is not found. For a simple get tool, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 50%: the 'slug' parameter has a helpful description, but 'id' lacks one. The description says 'by id' which reinforces the purpose of the id parameter but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Since id is a simple integer and slug is already described, the description provides marginal added meaning.

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 fetches a single AI job by id, with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from siblings like wafle_ai_jobs_list (which lists multiple) and wafle_ai_jobs_accept/reject (which modify).

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 implied: fetching by id suggests it should be used when a specific job ID is available and full details are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wafle_ai_jobs_list or mention any exclusions, such as needing the job to belong to the given slug.

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