hpc_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Full detail' without specifying what details are included, any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise: two lines with the purpose immediately front-loaded. Every word has a purpose, with no unnecessary information.

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 (single parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and the parameter meaning. The output schema handles return value details, so the description is adequate, though it could mention that it provides full job detail.

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 schema property 'job_id' has only a title 'Job Id' with no description (coverage 0%). The description adds 'Numeric LSF job id', which clarifies the parameter's format (numeric) and system context (LSF), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Full detail for one job' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving detailed information about a specific job. This distinguishes it from siblings like hpc_status (likely overall status) and hpc_jobs (likely listing 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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'for one job', but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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