submit_array_job

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

Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable detail: one task per parameter set, $PARAMS interpolation, concurrency cap, and simulation by default. It does not cover confirmation requirements or submission side effects, but adds substantial context beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value (mechanics, variable interpolation, use case, simulation default). No filler.

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 13-parameter submission tool, the description covers purpose and some behavior but leaves most parameter semantics unexplained. Output schema exists to cover return values, but the parameter documentation gap makes it only adequate.

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 only explains the parameters array concept and the max_concurrent cap, leaving 11 other parameters (arch, mem_gb, modules, workdir, time_limit, cpus_per_task, gpus_per_node, spack_packages, confirm, etc.) completely undocumented.

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 (soumet) and resource (balayage parametrique en tableau SLURM), with mechanics (one task per parameter set, cap on concurrency). It implicitly distinguishes from submit_job by being array-based and references submit_job for simulation default, making its niche clear.

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?

Provides clear context: ideal for hyperparameter search or evaluation on multiple datasets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives besides the simulation-default reference to submit_job.

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