export_job_report

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the operation is read-only on ROMEO but creates private local files, and live=false enables offline export. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) alone would leave the agent unsure whether the cluster is mutated, so this clarification is genuinely valuable. It stops short of describing permissions or where files land.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the export purpose before the side-effects clause. No filler, though the run-on structure packs multiple ideas together.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But for a 5-param tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits semantics for code_dir and output_dir and gives no hint of file layout or naming, leaving gaps an agent would need.

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% across 5 params. The description explains the live flag's offline behavior and implies data_files are 'explicitly chosen' remote files, but code_dir, output_dir, and job_id receive no added meaning. It partially compensates but leaves several params unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 (exporter) and resource (fiche JSON/Markdown d'un job soumis via ce MCP) and enumerates the report contents (script Slurm filtré, provenance, ressources mesurées, SHA-256). An agent can tell it apart from job_output or job_efficiency. It does not name a sibling alternative, 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?

It clarifies the offline case (live=false autorise l'export hors ligne) and the read-only-on-ROMEO constraint, which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it never states when to choose this over job_output or profile_report, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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