get_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or data volume. The description is minimal on behavior beyond the basic function.

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 a clear first sentence stating the purpose. The parameter details are included efficiently. However, the Args section is embedded in the description text, which is acceptable but slightly repetitive. 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 has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is fairly complete. It explains how to specify partition and cluster. However, it does not mention usage patterns like checking before submit, which could enhance context. Still, it's sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's inputs.

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 effectively adds meaning: partition is explained as a specific partition to check (default all) and transport as a cluster selector with options for local or remote via SSH profile. This goes beyond the raw schema and provides clear actionable guidance.

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 gets current GPU and node resource availability on the SLURM cluster. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GPU and node resource availability'), and the sibling tool list includes other operations like job management and workflow creation, so this tool is distinct.

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 some guidance via parameters (partition and transport) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_config or list_jobs. It implies usage for checking resource availability before job submission, but lacks direct when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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