hpc_job_history

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

The description lacks behavioral traits beyond the stated purpose. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., for invalid job_id).

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: two sentences plus an Args section, no filler. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then parameter details.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks context about required permissions, job lifecycle stage (e.g., completed vs running), or side effects.

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?

The description adds 'Numeric LSF job id.' to the parameter, clarifying its type and system context. Since schema coverage is 0%, this provides minimal yet helpful meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 tool's purpose: 'Scheduling history for one job -- why it pended, why it exited.' This specifies the verb (retrieve history) and resource (single job), distinguishing it from siblings like hpc_job_status (current status) or hpc_jobs (list jobs).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to sibling tools like hpc_pending_reason or hpc_job_efficiency.

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