Analyze efficiency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by revealing it works off seff/sacct output, implying it analyzes completed jobs, but omits prerequisites (job must have finished, accounting data available) and the profile/auth requirement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and both operand modes appear immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a right-sizing recommendation contains and what preconditions exist; it does neither. It is minimally adequate for a three-parameter analysis tool but leaves notable 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 only 33% (jobId and lastN are undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 'a job' to jobId and 'your recent runs' to lastN, but never explains mutual exclusivity, precedence, or the jobId pattern format.

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 outcome ('recommend right-sizing') plus the resources it works on ('a job or your recent runs'), and names the underlying mechanisms (seff/sacct). It is clearly distinct from pre-run siblings like ris_estimate_resources, though it never says so explicitly.

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 'for a job or your recent runs' implies the two usage modes, but no when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. ris_estimate_resources for pre-run planning) is given. Usage must be inferred from the parameter hints.

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