job_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the two-mode behavior (list vs. single-script-with-helpers) and that list entries carry summaries from comments and resources, which is useful extra context. Nothing about caching or scale limits, but the bar is lower with annotations present.

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?

Opens with what the templates are, then the no-name/with-name behavior, then the routing advice — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly run-on in the parenthetical lists, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what is returned in each mode (summaries plus resources for lists; script and helper scripts for a named lookup). Given read-only annotations and a single optional parameter, that is close to sufficient, with only name-format details missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the lone parameter, and it does: no name yields the list, with name (as listed or as a file name) yields the script plus its helper scripts, and it notes the accepted forms. That meaningfully exceeds the bare `name: string` schema, though it doesn't specify name format or ambiguity rules.

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 resource (tested job scripts / templates from jobs/ and config directories) and implicitly the action of listing or retrieving them via the name/no-name dual behavior. It distinguishes itself from draft_job by naming it explicitly, though the verb itself is never stated outright.

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 says 'Prefer draft_job for a new job; use these for patterns it does not cover' and then names concrete uncovered patterns (vLLM multi-node benchmarks, DDP training, CPU-node arrays, container pulls). This is a clear when/when-not/alternative rule an agent can act on directly.

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