Submit Job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that execution is asynchronous and in the background, but it omits permissions, side effects, failure behavior, and whether submitted commands can be destructive or long-running beyond the schema-provided timeout.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the key qualifiers (asynchronous, background, session-scoped) are front-loaded.

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 100% schema description coverage and an output schema, parameter and return details are already covered elsewhere. The description is minimally adequate, but for a job-submission tool with no annotations it could do more to mention monitoring, cancellation, or permission expectations.

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 100%, so the four parameters are already fully documented by the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or usage detail for session_id, command, inputs, or timeout, so this is the baseline 3.

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 (submits), resource (asynchronous command/job), and scope (within a session), plus the key behavioral qualifier that execution is in the background. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling job tools such as get_job, wait_job, or cancel_job.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The description only implies that this tool is for starting background commands, without saying when to prefer it over monitoring tools like get_job or wait_job.

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