estimate_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying what the estimate covers (routing, capacity, cost). No contradictions with annotations. However, it omits details like rate limits or state effects, but these are less critical for a read-only estimate.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to process. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose but lacks parameter guidance. The complexity is moderate, and while the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, the missing parameter semantics leave the description incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only model_size described). The tool description does not elaborate on how parameters like workload, routing_mode, image, command, etc., affect the estimate. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter context, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action ('Estimate'), the resource ('Jungle Grid workload'), and the specific aspects estimated ('routing, capacity source, expected cost'). It also distinguishes itself from submission tools by noting 'without submitting it', making the purpose very specific.

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 description implies when to use this tool (before submission) versus the sibling 'submit_job'. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like checking existing jobs or provide alternative contexts. While clear for its primary use case, additional guidance on when not to use it would improve this dimension.

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