get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Given that there is an output schema (from context), the return format is not required, but behavioral traits are still lacking.

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 concise with two sentences plus a bullet list. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the parameter details are directly relevant. 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?

With 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains how to specify job_id and transport, and the output schema covers return values. It lacks example usage but is adequate for a simple status-check tool.

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. It fully explains both parameters: job_id is 'SLURM job ID to check' and transport is described with specific usage options (local vs. SSH profile). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Get the status of a specific SLURM job' with a specific verb (get) and resource (status of a specific SLURM job). It distinguishes from siblings like list_jobs or cancel_job by focusing on a single job's status.

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 provides explicit guidance on the transport parameter: 'omit / “local” for local SLURM, or an SSH profile name to query that remote cluster.' This helps the agent decide when to use local vs. remote. However, no direct comparison with sibling tools is given.

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