hpc_render_job

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool does not submit the job ('without submitting'). However, it does not describe the output format or any side effects, such as whether the script is printed to stdout or returned as a string. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but lacks some detail.

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 concise, using three sentences plus a bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without 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?

For a tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, and parameters. It mentions the output is a script, which is sufficient. However, a brief note on the output format (e.g., 'returns the script as a string') would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully defines all parameters: profile_path (path to local profile YAML), run_id (short identifier), and resource_overrides (optional JSON object with an example). This compensates completely for the schema gap and adds meaningful context.

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 'Render the LSF job script a submission WOULD use, without submitting,' specifying the verb 'render' and the resource 'LSF job script'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hpc_submit_run by explicitly mentioning it's a dry run.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to show the human a script before the first run of a new profile.' It implies this tool is for initial validation, not for regular submissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which would elevate it to a 5.

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