hpc_cluster_info

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world query. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of what the per_node mode expands to (CPUs, memory, GPUs) and that it is backed by sinfo, but says nothing about cost, caching, or failure modes for an HPC cluster query.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core resource named first and the mode flag second. It could add one clause about the default output without bloating, but as written nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level in both modes. It is nearly sufficient; only the default view's fields remain unspecified.

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 schema alone does not explain per_node. The description compensates for the true case ('shows CPUs, memory and GPUs for every node') but never states what the default false mode returns, leaving half the parameter's semantics implied.

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?

States a specific resource (partitions and node availability) and cites the underlying command (sinfo), so the agent knows this is cluster-level inventory rather than job-level status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like hpc_queue, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: you call it to inspect partitions/nodes, and per_node=true when you need per-node hardware detail. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the job-status siblings that could be confused with it.

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