Discover RIS profile

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context: workspaces are derived from groups AND live-tested, and the tool never auto-selects, requiring confirmation. This is more than annotation repetition.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and scope, then the confirmation behavior. No padding, though the parenthetical is slightly compressed.

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 single optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, derivation method (groups + live test), and interaction model. It could note what happens if no writable workspaces are found, but it is essentially complete.

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 already 100% and documents the single profile parameter with its source file and default behavior. The description mentions no parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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 (probe/read) and resource (RIS identity), and enumerates exactly what it returns: username, Slurm accounts/QOS, and writable storage workspaces. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like ris_auth_status or ris_show_config without opening any schema.

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?

It describes the interaction contract ('presents candidates and asks you to confirm') but never explicitly states when to reach for this over ris_auth_status or ris_show_config. Usage is implied by 'discover your identity' but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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