hpc_pending_reason

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by indicating the tool queries the scheduler's pending reason, but it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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, with a clear lead sentence followed by a structured Args block. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's core function and parameter sufficiently for a simple query tool. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions, but overall adequate.

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 includes an explicit Args section that adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that job_id is numeric and an LSF job ID. This compensates for 0% schema coverage and helps the agent provide correct input.

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: to explain why a pending job is pending, using the scheduler's own words. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like hpc_status and hpc_job_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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