spawn_remote_workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned token makes the URL immediately usable, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it omits any mention of resource consumption (GPU/time_limit), confirmation semantics, or cleanup expectations.

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: purpose and output first, then the differentiator against the sibling. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 needn't be restated, but for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, a mutating spawn that consumes GPU resources, the description leaves too much undocumented — notably the confirm flag, port/local_port, and resource sizing parameters.

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?

Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning: arch, gpus, port, confirm, workdir, local_port, time_limit, cpus_per_task, spack_packages and workspace_type are all unaddressed. Only a vague signal ('GPU node', 'interactive workspace') hints at the resource parameters, leaving confirm and local_port entirely opaque.

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 and resource ('Ouvre un espace de travail interactif sur un noeud GPU') and enumerates what it produces (SSH bridge command, local URL with token). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling launch_interactive_service, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (launch_interactive_service) and the condition that favors this tool: the token is generated here so the URL works immediately without reading job output. That is clear routing guidance, though it doesn't state explicit prerequisites or when this tool should be avoided.

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