build_job_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that nothing is submitted (non-mutating), that it mirrors ds.jobs.generate and returns a dict for inspection, and it provides a specific behavioral nuance about SimCenter apps not needing script_filename. This gives a clear picture of side effects and return value.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds two crucial pieces of context. Every sentence provides distinct value: purpose, behavior/return, and a critical app-specific caveat. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 covers the essential context: what it does, that it does not submit, what it returns, and an important app-specific parameter behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity (12 params, but most with sane defaults) and the existence of an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, though it omits any mention of required permissions or error conditions.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning to one parameter (script_filename) via the SimCenter note, while the other 11 parameters rely on titles and defaults alone. This is insufficient for a 12-parameter tool with no other parameter documentation.

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 starts with 'Build a complete Tapis job request from the app definition,' which clearly states the verb (build), the resource (job request), and the source (app definition). It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_job and validate_job by emphasizing this is a build action, not a submission or validation.

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 says 'Nothing is submitted,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (for actual submission) and implies it should be used for inspection before submitting. It also gives specific guidance for SimCenter apps regarding script_filename, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like submit_job for the actual submission step.

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