get_job

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description earns credit for disclosing the blocking behavior and the concrete 25-second cap on wait=true, which an agent must know to avoid appearing hung. It stops short of saying what is returned if the job has not finished within that window, which is the one behavioral detail still missing.

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, no filler, with the core purpose stated first and the blocking caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers what is needed to call it correctly. The only shortfall is the unstated post-timeout behavior, which matters for interpreting a returned in-progress status.

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 coverage is 100%, with both job_id and wait already documented in the schema, including the 'up to 25 seconds' phrasing. The description restates the wait semantics rather than adding new meaning such as default value or what wait=false implies. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status and progress of a background job') and enumerates the job kinds it covers (offline download, archive extraction). An agent can tell it apart from mutation siblings, though it never names list_jobs, the closest read sibling.

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 only implied: the schema notes job_id comes from fetch_url or extract_archive, and the description explains the wait flag. There is no explicit guidance on when to poll with this tool versus listing jobs with list_jobs, nor when to prefer wait=true over repeated calls.

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