check_job

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: what rules are checked, that missing paths cause submit_job refusal unless a dependency exists, that test-only start time is unreliable, and what asc and expected_minutes mean. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side checks and refusal 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains information-dense rather than padded. It is long and somewhat run-on due to multiple parentheticals and semicolon-separated clauses, but the length is largely justified by the tool’s complexity.

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 six parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers most behavior but leaves script_args unexplained and does not describe the overall return structure beyond mentioning missing_paths and asc. It is adequate for invocation but has clear completeness gaps for a complex check tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it mostly does: it explains script as a cluster-relative path, script_text as inline content, cwd as the run location, sbatch_args as separate list items, and expected_minutes as a runtime estimate. It does not explicitly explain script_args, leaving one of six parameters 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: checking a job before submission, with concrete checks like runbook rules, cost estimate, approval requirement, and sbatch --test-only. It is clearly distinct from submit_job and draft_job by framing the tool as a pre-submission validation step.

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 usage context is explicit: use it before submitting. It also clarifies the script vs. script_text usage patterns and notes that script_text can be used for a draft_job result without pushing first. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or fully compare it to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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