reinvent_register_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool only registers for status tracking (not execution) and provides path defaults. While it doesn't detail side effects or failure behavior, the registration-only nature is transparently conveyed, which is significant for a tool that could otherwise be mistaken as a job runner.

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 compact: a top-line purpose, a short usage directive, and a bullet-like Args list. Every sentence contributes new information—no filler, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 full workflow: run the command first, register it, then poll or attach PID. It lacks an explicit note about return values or errors, but given the tool's simple registration nature and lack of output schema, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to act correctly.

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's Args section adds essential meaning: run_type enum values, workdir purpose, job_id auto-generation, and explicit defaults for log_file and config_path. It compensates well for the missing schema-level descriptions, though it repeats the enum values already in 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 'Register a user-launched REINVENT4 job for status tracking' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing polling with reinvent_job_status and PID attachment with reinvent_attach_pid, making the tool's unique role evident.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use after running the suggested_cmd yourself' and names the subsequent steps: poll with reinvent_job_status, optionally attach PID with reinvent_attach_pid. This provides clear when-to-use context and names alternatives/related tools, meeting the 5-level bar.

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