Generate sbatch template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Generate only — never submits,' which is meaningful for a tool sitting next to 10 submit_* siblings, but it says nothing about the return shape (raw script text? file path?) despite there being no output schema.

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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the critical non-submitting constraint placed immediately after. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.

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 9-parameter tool with 22% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it explains neither how the parameters shape the rendered script (e.g., how partition/jobType interact) nor what the caller receives back. The generate-vs-submit distinction is well covered, but the operational detail an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 22% — just 'profile' and 'project' are documented, while cpus, memGb, account, jobType, gpuCount, walltime, and partition are bare. The description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond a generic nod to 'job type,' so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 9-parameter tool.

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 ('Render a ready-to-edit sbatch script') and immediately scopes it with 'for any job type.' The clause 'Generate only — never submits' explicitly separates it from the many ris_submit_* siblings, so an agent can route correctly 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?

The 'never submits' clause implies the intended situation (you want to inspect/edit a script rather than launch a job), which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative tool (ris_plan_run, ris_run, ris_submit_python_job, etc.) or states the explicit condition for choosing generation over submission, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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