hpc_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions 'including recently finished ones,' but fails to clarify what 'recently' means, whether authentication is needed, or if the list is paginated. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could benefit from additional structure or detail without becoming verbose.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It explains the tool's scope (user's jobs) and includes that it covers recently finished ones. Still, it lacks details on sorting, limits, or the definition of 'recently,' which could help the agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter info. Given the schema is exhaustive, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 lists LSF jobs for the current user, including recently finished ones. It specifies the resource (LSF jobs) and the scope (user's jobs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hpc_job_status or hpc_job_history, so it misses the top score.

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 over alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use. For a tool with many siblings, this omission reduces usability.

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