Enqueue a worker run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful process detail (builds/validates sbatch, appends to queue), but doesn't mention whether it waits, how failures surface, or queue semantics. Adds some value beyond annotations, hence a mid score.

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 core action and benefit, 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?

An 8-parameter mutation/queue tool with no output schema and 25% param coverage needs more: the description omits resource-param meaning, queue/failure behavior, and interaction with the submit siblings.

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?

Only 2 of 8 parameters have schema descriptions (profile, project), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all (cpus, memGb, walltime, gpuCount, account, script are all unexplained). With 25% coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 (Queue) and resource (Python job for the per-user worker), plus the motivating benefit (agent need not stay connected). It is somewhat distinguished from submission siblings like ris_submit_python_job by mentioning the worker queue, but it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from those submit tools.

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 parenthetical 'so the agent need not stay connected' implies async/deferred usage, but there's no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-ris_submit_python_job or ris_run guidance despite several closely related submission siblings.

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