suggest_submission_slot

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description says the tool may 'soumettre' (submit), implying a write/side-effecting action. This directly conflicts with the read-only annotation. No other behavioral context (cost of query, freshness of queue data) is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the recommendation goal front-loaded and the comparison basis (queue vs. cluster state) appended. No filler, though the 'ou soumettre' clause adds ambiguity rather than value.

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 not be explained, but with zero parameter documentation, no usage guidance, an annotation-contradicting verb, and a language mismatch (French description vs. English tool/params), the definition is not complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 3 undocumented parameters (hours, nodes, gpus_per_node). The phrase 'taille de job envisagee' loosely gestures at job size, but the description never maps to the individual parameters or explains defaults/units, so it does little 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?

The description conveys a specific function: comparing the queue to cluster state to recommend which partition/architecture would start fastest for a given job size. However, 'Recommande ou soumettre' ('recommend or submit') blurs whether this is an advisory tool or an action tool, and it never names the sibling it complements (e.g. submit_job, romeo_status). The core idea is graspable but not crisply bounded.

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?

There is an implied context (use before submitting a job to pick the best slot), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives such as romeo_status or romeo_quota. An agent is left to infer the workflow position from the description alone.

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