job

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether operations are read-only or destructive (e.g., cancel is destructive). It lacks information on permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 very short (two sentences) and to the point, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core idea, but the brevity reduces usefulness.

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?

Given that there are 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of each operation, return format, or prerequisites, making it hard for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 description provides no additional meaning for the three parameters (op, job_id, active_only). It does not list valid values for 'op' or explain the purpose of 'job_id' and 'active_only'.

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 says 'Consolidated job entrypoint over get/list/cancel' but does not specify the exact operations (e.g., which actions the 'op' parameter accepts). It also mentions backwards compatibility but does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_job_status and list_jobs, which presumably offer similar functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate get/list/cancel tools. The only hint is 'Existing job tools stay registered for backwards compatibility,' which implies that new usage should prefer this tool, but it is not explicit.

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