romeo_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully frames the tool as a single aggregated snapshot rather than many calls, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or how include_queue alters behavior.

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 tight sentences, with the returned content front-loaded and the usage note last. No filler; the agent gets contents and timing immediately.

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 prose, and read-only safety is annotation-covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented include_queue parameter, which is the one thing an agent must decide before calling.

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 sole parameter include_queue (default true) is never mentioned in the description. The description lists result categories but leaves the one input entirely unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Etat de ROMEO en un appel') and enumerates the exact payload: partitions, free nodes per architecture, running jobs, and scheduling share. This makes the tool's output scope unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like romeo_quota or romeo_fairshare_forecast.

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 final sentence ('A appeler avant de dimensionner un job') gives a concrete calling context, telling the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming an alternative for other situations, so no explicit routing to siblings is provided.

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