romeo_selfcheck

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — it enumerates the categories of discrepancy it reports (partitions/limits, node counts per architecture, node capacities, account ceilings, absent tools) and explicitly states 'sans rien corriger' (it corrects nothing), confirming a pure diagnostic. No rate limits or auth notes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded: the comparison action comes first, the enumeration of what is checked next, and the usage trigger last. Three dense sentences with no filler. Slightly list-heavy but every clause carries information.

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 description instead conveys scope, non-mutating behavior, and invocation triggers. For a zero-parameter diagnostic this is nearly complete, only missing explicit sibling disambiguation against run_cluster_sanity_check.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no inputs by describing a self-contained comparison.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it confronts the server's encoded cluster model against SLURM reality (partitions, time limits, node counts by architecture, account caps, absent tools). Clearly a diagnostic/audit operation rather than a query. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'run_cluster_sanity_check', which sounds functionally adjacent, so it stops 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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: run it when a sizing refusal looks unjustified, or after cluster maintenance. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It names no alternative (e.g. romeo_status, run_cluster_sanity_check) and states no when-not, so it falls short of a 5.

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