romeo_fairshare_forecast

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful mechanism context by stating it reads current usage via sshare and compares it with projected consumption, but it does not describe return values, limitations, or how the comparison is performed.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and downstream impact, the second states the mechanism. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler language.

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 need not be explained. The purpose and mechanism are covered, but with three completely undocumented parameters and no explicit routing among many sibling tools, the definition is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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% for all three parameters. The description mentions a 'charge envisagée' and projected consumption conceptually, but it never maps those concepts to duration_hours, simulated_cpus, or simulated_gpus, leaving parameter meanings to inference from names.

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 and resource: estimating the effect of a planned load on the account's usage share and therefore on team job priority. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic job submission or monitoring siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as romeo_quota.

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 implied use case is clear: forecast priority impact before submitting a planned load. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for comparison.

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