Clone Job

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the description that creates a new job. The description adds behavioral details (fetches XML in clone mode, submits as new job) beyond annotations, but does not disclose all side effects (e.g., whether it modifies original).

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 with no redundancy. It efficiently covers what the tool does, how it works, and its use cases.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and behavior. No additional details are needed for correct invocation.

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 100% with a description for job_id. The description adds an example format ('J:12345' or '12345'), providing additional context beyond the schema.

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 clones (re-submits) an existing Beaker job, explaining the process of fetching the original XML and submitting it as a new job. It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_job' by focusing on cloning an existing 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 description explicitly mentions it's useful for retrying failed jobs or running the same test again, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though the purpose is implied.

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