hpc_job_efficiency

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It states it's an efficiency check (read operation) but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., invalid job_id) or whether it works on running/completed jobs.

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?

Extremely concise with front-loaded purpose, immediate usage guidance, and clear parameter documentation. Every sentence adds 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?

With an output schema present, description does not need to explain return values. It covers key aspects: efficiency metric, when to use, and parameter. Minor omission: no mention of job state prerequisites.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (only title for property). Description adds meaning by specifying job_id as 'Numeric LSF job id', which is vital for correct invocation. Could be more detailed about format, but is sufficient.

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 it provides CPU and memory efficiency of a job vs. requested. It is distinct from siblings like hpc_job_status or hpc_job_history which focus on status or history, not efficiency.

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?

Explicitly advises to check after every substantial run and tighten next request, giving clear usage context. However, does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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