status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the scope of what is summarized (partitions and queue counts), which is close to restating return content also covered by the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope comes before the detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only overview tool, though it leans on brevity rather than structure.

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 simple read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate about what is returned. It omits any guidance on the required `connection` argument and gives no hint of freshness, cost, or when the snapshot is useful, which leaves real gaps.

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% and the single required `connection` parameter is completely undocumented. The description says nothing about how a connection is identified or what format it takes, leaving a required input entirely unexplained.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: a Slurm cluster overview covering partitions (nodes/CPU/memory/GPU) and queue state counts. That is enough to distinguish it from action tools like submit, cancel, or exec. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `resources`, which plausibly reports similar cluster capacity data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as `resources` or `jobs`. The agent must infer from the one-line purpose when this overview is the right call.

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