submit_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: resource directives in the script override parameters, and parameters are ignored when #PJM directives exist. It also specifies the return type. It does not cover side effects like resource consumption, but the disclosure is solid.

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 two tight sentences plus a return-type line. It front-loads the purpose, gives the critical precedence note, and stops. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description provides the essential behavioral context and return format. The output schema exists, so return values are already structured. The main gap is lack of per-parameter details, but the precedence note is a critical piece that rounds out the overall picture.

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 compensate. It explains the key parameter `script_content` and the general relationship between parameters and script directives, but it does not define individual parameters like `elapse` or `rscgrp`. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description only partially fills the gap.

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 action ('Submit a batch job'), the specific target ('TCS/PJM scheduler on Genkai'), and is distinct from all sibling tools. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern that leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Provide the full job script content' and states that script directives take precedence over parameters. However, it does not mention alternative tools like 'generate_job_template', so it lacks a direct when-to-use vs. alternatives comparison.

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