allocate_debug_node

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that it reserves a compute node and returns a command to obtain a shell, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits operational details such as whether confirmation is required (confirm parameter), duration limits (minutes, time_limit), or what happens if no node is available.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return behavior and usage hint. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no wasted wording.

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?

Though annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema presumably documents the returned command, the description is inadequate for a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage. It does not explain the confirm flag, time limits, or resource sizing, which are essential for correct invocation of a reservation tool.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the six parameters (arch, confirm, minutes, time_limit, cpus_per_task, gpus_per_node). It only vaguely references 'aarch64', which does not clarify the arch parameter. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Reserve') and resource ('un noeud de calcul') and scopes the purpose to interactive debugging (compilation, profiling, tests). It implies an alternative to batch jobs but does not name a specific sibling tool like submit_job or launch_interactive_service, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It clearly states when the tool is useful: interactive debugging and testing on aarch64 without a batch-job round trip. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives by tool name, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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