Researcher wizard

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's 'Does NOT submit' explicitly confirms no side effects, which is the key behavioral fact here. It does not describe the shape of the returned plan, though no output schema exists to carry that either.

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 with the scope and the negative constraint front-loaded; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition omits both the optional-parameter semantics and any hint about what the plan contains or how it maps to the recommended ris_submit_* call. What is present is accurate but leaves meaningful 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 29%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not: it names 'goal' implicitly and lumps all six optional fields into 'a few optional hints.' Nothing explains what needsGpu, framework, dataLocation, project or approxRuntimeHours imply for the generated plan (only profile has a schema description).

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 transformation (plain-English goal + optional hints -> safe plan + exact next ris_submit_* call) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the submit siblings with 'Does NOT submit.' An agent can identify this as the planning entry point 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?

Scopes the audience ('For non-HPC users') and routes the agent toward the ris_submit_* family as the follow-up action, so the when-to-use context is clear. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. when an HPC-experienced agent should skip straight to ris_plan_run or ris_submit_python_job.

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