job_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the 20-file cap on log tails, that tails are 'cleaned', the scope spanning every array task and requeue attempt, and what the diagnosis contains (categories, signatures, transient meaning). It does not disclose cost/latency of scanning many logs or behavior on an unknown job_id.

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?

Dense but efficient: every clause corresponds to actual returned content, and the diagnosis sentence is dedicated to the failure case. It is slightly front-loaded as a field list rather than an opening verb+resource statement, which costs a little scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description more than compensates by describing the returned fields and the structure of the diagnosis object in detail. Combined with read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only residual gap is parameter-level guidance, scored separately.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. job_id is never characterized (format, whether array task IDs are accepted) and log_lines — the parameter that most affects output volume, default 30 — is not mentioned at all, even though the 'at most 20 files' cap implies per-file tails.

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 enumerates precisely what is returned for a job: state, exit code, times, time limit, nodes, cost, sbatch command line, pending reason/dependency, and log tails, plus a failure diagnosis. That is a specific, differentiated resource. It stops short of naming siblings such as job_log or list_jobs, so the agent must infer the boundary from content alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnosis clause ('An ended job that failed... gets a diagnosis'), which tells the agent this is the tool for post-mortem inspection. There is no explicit 'use X instead when…' guidance against siblings like check_job or job_log, and no statement of prerequisites, though the sibling overlap is real.

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