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. It does disclose what the call returns (status and progress of a background job), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown/invalid job_id, or whether polling is expected.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The parenthetical example adds real context rather than padding, though the sentence is close to the minimum viable length.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return content but omits how to obtain a job_id and how this differs from wait_job/list_jobs. With no annotations and no output schema to fall back on, it is adequate but leaves 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 0% and the description never mentions the single parameter. It does not explain what a job_id is, where the agent obtains one (e.g. from list_jobs or pull_model), or its expected format, so the parameter is effectively undocumented in both structured and natural-language fields.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair ('Get status/progress of a background job') and clarifies scope with an example ('e.g. a model pull'), so an agent knows it reads job state rather than managing jobs. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_jobs, wait_job, or control_job.

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 wait_job (which presumably blocks until completion) or list_jobs (which presumably enumerates jobs). The 'e.g. a model pull' example hints at context but does not tell the agent how to choose among the job-related siblings.

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