job_dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the analysis operates on (datasets and PROCs per step) but says nothing about the spool-read behavior when a jobId is used, latency, or failure modes for malformed JCL — context the annotations do not supply.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with every clause (inputs, outputs, updates per step, PROCs) contributing distinct information. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description effectively pre-announces the return content by listing the dependency categories that will be reported. With all three parameters optional and a well-covered schema, this is nearly complete; only the response shape (per-step nesting, empty-result behavior) is left unstated.

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 100%, with mutual exclusivity of 'jcl' and 'jobId' and the purpose of 'environment' already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (a job's JCL) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: dataset inputs, outputs, updates per step, and PROCs invoked. That enumeration separates it from siblings like get_job_jcl (raw retrieval) or analyze_job_failure (failure diagnosis), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 trailing clause 'the basis for predecessor/successor analysis' implies the downstream use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the many job-related siblings. The agent must infer that this is the pre-analysis step before prediction/scheduling work.

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