job_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that output is 'recent' and 'bounded,' which is useful, but it does not explain polling semantics, the meaning of the timeout, whether output is consumed/cleared, or what happens if the job no longer exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and resource efficiently, though it may be too terse given the lack of parameter context.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and zero annotations. The meanings of lines and timeout, and the behavioral contract of polling, are missing, leaving important gaps in what an agent needs to call the tool 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 adds no parameter-level meaning. While job_id is inferable from context, the roles of 'lines' and especially 'timeout' are left undefined, so an agent cannot confidently choose correct values without external knowledge.

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 verb ('Poll') and names the exact resource ('recent bounded stdout and stderr') along with its source ('a background job'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like read_output or job_status.

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 phrase 'from a background job' implies the tool is meant for retrieving output of a previously started job, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as job_status or read_output, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other.

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