hpc_sync_project

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

Discloses key traits: uploads source/configs only, refuses files >4MB, and dry_run lists without sending. However, lacks details on overwrite behavior, idempotency, or error handling. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and is partially adequate.

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?

Extremely concise—two sections: a brief purpose/usage paragraph followed by a clean, labeled arg list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers core usage, parameter roles, and key limitations (file size, dataset handling). With an output schema present but not described, and no annotations, the description is sufficient for an experienced HPC user, but could mention return value or error scenarios.

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 schema has zero description coverage; the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: profile_path's sync patterns, project_dir as source, and dry_run as a listing mode. This adds essential meaning beyond the 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 uploads project source files to the cluster root. It distinguishes itself from related tasks like submission and dataset transfer, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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 advises running before submission after code changes, and notes that the connector doesn't auto-upload. It also clarifies what to exclude (datasets, model weights, large files), providing clear when-to and when-not-to guidance. Misses explicit alternatives.

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