job_efficiency

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful precondition that the job must be finished (it will not work on running jobs) plus the fact that it returns sizing recommendations, which is genuine context beyond the annotation.

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, then the equivalence to seff, then the usage instruction. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly avoids doing so. For a single-parameter read-only tool it is nearly complete; the only gap is any hint about where job_id comes from or its expected form.

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 says nothing about the single job_id parameter, so it does not compensate for the schema gap. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but no format or sourcing guidance is given, so it adds no meaning beyond the field title.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it reports the real efficiency (CPU, memory, GPU) of a finished job, and explicitly scopes it to completed jobs ('un job termine'). That scope qualifier alone distinguishes it from live-metric siblings such as job_live_metrics and job_status without opening either 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?

It gives a clear usage condition ('A lire systematiquement apres un job pour calibrer le suivant'), telling the agent exactly when to call it. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which is what keeps this from a 5.

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