romeo_software

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

readOnlyHint=true already marks this as a safe read, and the description adds real context beyond that: the catalogue varies by architecture, and tools missing from the login-node PATH (conda, apptainer, multiple cuda versions) are only reachable here. It could say more about result shape/pagination, but the architecture caveat is valuable.

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-loads the core purpose, then the architecture warning, then the downstream handoff. Three focused sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical tool list is slightly dense.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, the key architecture caveat, and the follow-on tools. Only the parameter meanings remain thin for a 3-param 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% for all three params (arch, limit, search). The description partially compensates by stressing that the catalogue depends on architecture, hinting at the `arch` parameter's importance, but it adds nothing about `limit` or `search`.

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 (recherche/cherche) and resource (catalogue Spack de ROMEO), scoping it as the official software-loading path. An agent can distinguish it from romeo_modules or build_on_node without opening any 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?

Explicitly states the downstream workflow: found packages are passed to submit_job or build_on_node via `spack_packages`. It gives a clear context for use but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling romeo_modules tool, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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