hpc_submit_run

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

Describes key behaviors: caps enforcement, confirmation thresholds, and requirement for human approval. With no annotations, this adds necessary context, though it doesn't detail failure modes or default behavior.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: first states purpose and key behavior, second lists parameters with clear explanations. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with critical info.

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 complexity, presence of an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers all essential aspects: submission process, human-in-loop, parameter purposes, and constraints. An agent can use this correctly without ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all 5 parameters, including the special usage of confirmed_by_user and the optional nature of resource_overrides. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'a single job from a profile,' differentiating it from sibling hpc_submit_chain. The mention of caps and confirmation thresholds further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (submit single job) and provides guidance on the confirmed_by_user parameter. Though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, sibling names imply alternatives.

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