Validate Genkai job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the key safety profile. The description adds 'without submitting it,' which reinforces the read-only nature but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or permission requirements. It is consistent with annotations but not overly informative.

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, well-structured sentence. It leads with the verb 'Validate' and immediately specifies both input modes and the non-submission behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 (nested definition object, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description is quite terse. It clarifies what is validated but does not explain what validation entails (e.g., syntax check, resource availability) or what the response/error behavior will look like. Adequate for a simple validator, but more context would improve completeness.

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 parameter meaning. It does map the two top-level parameters: scriptPath to an existing PJM script and definition to a structured normal-batch job definition. However, it does not elaborate on any nested fields within the definition object, leaving the schema to carry that burden. Minimal compensation.

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 purpose: to validate job definitions without submitting them. It explicitly names the two target input types (PJM script and structured normal-batch job definition), distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_job and render_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?

The phrase 'without submitting it' establishes a clear use case: pre-submission validation. While it does not explicitly mention alternative tools, the contrast with submit_job is implied, and the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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