list_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions listing all users and the transport parameter, but omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or if there are any side effects or rate limits.

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 very concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and the key parameter. It is front-loaded and avoids 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?

For a simple, one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main points. However, it lacks explicit statements about safety, idempotency, or whether the tool can be invoked without side effects, which is important for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value for the only parameter, explaining its role as a cluster selector with explicit values ('local' or SSH profile). This compensates for the lack of schema-level 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 clearly states the tool lists SLURM jobs in the queue, using 'like squeue' to reinforce behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status by noting 'all users', but could explicitly differentiate further.

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 guidance on the transport parameter (local vs remote), but does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like cancel_job or get_job_status, nor when not to use it.

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