llm_job_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that this tool retrieves 'captured stdout/stderr', clarifying the exact output content. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structural fields.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains the tool's purpose, what it retrieves, and the required identifier. The sibling context is not needed for completeness here.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add new information about parameter syntax or format; it simply reaffirms the purpose. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource ('captured stdout/stderr for a gateway async or deferred-sync job') and the required identifier ('by jobId'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like 'job_result' (general) and 'llm_job_status' (status only).

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 implies usage after an async job has been submitted and you need its output, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives such as 'llm_job_status' for checking job completion or 'job_result' for non-LLM jobs. The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusions.

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