hpc_queues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior (listing or showing limits) with no side effects. However, it does not elaborate on what 'full limits' entails, nor performance or authentication aspects. Adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 sentences plus an Args section. It immediately states the core purpose and front-loads the most important information. Every sentence adds value with 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers both modes and provides a usage example. It could mention authentication or error cases, but for a basic listing tool this is acceptable. The absence of annotations is partly compensated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well. It explains the queue parameter is optional, provides an example value ('gpua100'), and clarifies that omission lists all queues. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool lists LSF queues or shows full limits for one queue. The verb 'list' is specific and the resource 'LSF queues' is unambiguous. It distinguishes two modes: listing all or detailing one. This differentiates it from sibling tools like hpc_jobs or hpc_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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the queue parameter but offers no scenarios, preconditions, or comparisons with siblings such as hpc_status or hpc_jobs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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