skypilot_slurm_node_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return field list, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and following with concrete output fields. Nothing is redundant or verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are formally covered, and the description helpfully enumerates them. However, the sole input parameter is left unexplained, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation despite the tool's simplicity.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the parameter. It never mentions slurm_cluster_name, its meaning, allowed values, or the effect of its null default, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resource information for all nodes in a Slurm cluster'), and lists the fields it returns. The Slurm scope distinguishes it from the Kubernetes analog, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from broader status tools like skypilot_cluster_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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skypilot_kubernetes_node_info, skypilot_realtime_slurm_gpu_availability, or skypilot_cluster_status. Usage is only implied by the resource scope, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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