Submit array job

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds a genuine constraint not in the schema: the 10000 total-task cap (which reconciles the arrayEnd max of 100000). However it omits the critical two-step dryRun-then-confirm behavior, so the description is only partially carrying the mutation burden.

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 tightly written clauses with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a 21-parameter tool where more guidance would have earned its place.

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 21-parameter, non-read-only submission tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: the dryRun/confirm gating, partition and resource selection, and what the confirmation summary returns. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this safely without opening the schema.

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% across 21 parameters. The description adds meaning for essentially one concept (the array task ID env var) and the 10000 cap, leaving partition, walltime, cpus, memGb, gpuCount, maxConcurrent, modules and condaEnv unexplained in both schema and 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 verb and resource ('Run a project script across a bounded Slurm array') and clarifies the array semantics by noting the script reads $SLURM_ARRAY_TASK_ID. The 'array' framing implicitly separates it from the other submit_* siblings, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the dryRun/confirm submission workflow that governs this tool. An agent gets no signal about when an array job is preferable to ris_submit_python_job or ris_run, nor about prerequisites.

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