generate_job_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output type and nature (shell script string, template), and the list of rscgrps adds system-specific context. It does not disclose edge-case behavior like invalid inputs, but the non-destructive nature is apparent.

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 three sentences: purpose, resource groups, and output. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary phrases, though the resource group list adds unavoidable length.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output for a template generator, aided by the presence of an output schema. However, the lack of parameter documentation and annotation makes it less complete than needed for a tool with 8 configurable parameters.

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 compensate for all 8 parameters. It only addresses the rscgrp parameter by listing valid values; no other parameters (gpu, cores, elapse, job_name, work_dir, mpi_procs, extra_pjm_directives) are explained. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 clearly states the tool generates a PJM job script template for Genkai, and further clarifies it returns a shell script string with #PJM directives. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_job or list_files.

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 implies usage for creating a job template without submitting, as it mentions 'ready to submit with pjsub,' but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The listing of available rscgrps provides helpful context for choosing the correct resource group, giving clear context without formal when/not guidance.

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