sbatch_lint

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, non-mutating operation. Beyond that, the description discloses exactly what the lint checks for (Windows line endings, late #SBATCH directives, missing --mem, nonexistent paths, undefined variables, plaintext secrets) and that it accepts either script text or a cluster path, adding concrete behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and timing constraint, followed by the specific validations and input modes. Every clause earns its place by listing concrete checks or clarifying input handling; no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only lint tool with an output schema, the description supplies the purpose, checks performed, and input modes, so return values need not be explained. It could mention error behavior or required cluster access, but otherwise it is complete enough 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it maps 'script' to script text and 'path' to a script already deposited on the cluster, and signals that either can be supplied. It does not clarify precedence when both are provided or whether they are mutually exclusive, but the core semantics are covered.

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 (Verifie) and resource (un script de soumission) and distinguishes itself from submission siblings via 'AVANT de l'envoyer'. The list of checks (line endings, #SBATCH placement, missing --mem, etc.) further sharpens the purpose beyond the name alone.

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 phrase 'AVANT de l'envoyer' clearly establishes the usage context: run this before submitting a job. It implies the alternative (submit_job) without naming it, and gives no explicit exclusions, but the timing condition is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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