Job history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are finished jobs merged from sacct and local history, which is useful source-of-truth context, but it doesn't cover ordering, truncation via limit, or what merging implies for duplicates.

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 tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and scope. Appropriate for a read-only listing tool.

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 4 params, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is minimal but functional. It leaves the agent to infer ordering, the effect of limit/sinceDays, and how sacct vs local history records are reconciled, which matters for interpreting results.

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 50%, with only profile and project described in-schema; limit and sinceDays are undocumented. The description mentions neither, so it fails to compensate for the half of parameters lacking schema documentation. Baseline 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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: 'Recent finished jobs via sacct, merged with local run history.' This tells the agent it's a read that combines two sources. It doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like ris_list_my_jobs or ris_analyze_efficiency, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'finished' implies scope (completed jobs rather than running or held), which is a partial when-to-use signal. There's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ris_list_my_jobs or ris_explain_job, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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