hpc_generate_rmd

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the template references cluster data paths; it does not say whether a file is written to disk, whether output_dir must pre-exist, or what the generated content contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose without padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 6 parameters (5 required), a 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool correctly. It should at least explain output_dir and the analysis_type options.

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% for 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at 'data paths'. It adds no meaning for title, author, output_dir, r_packages, or the analysis_type enum values (QC, DESeq2, survival, scRNA, general), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (Generate), resource (R Markdown notebook template), and scope (references data paths on the cluster), which distinguishes it from hpc_generate_sbatch and hpc_generate_rmd_render_job. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus hpc_generate_sbatch or hpc_generate_rmd_render_job, nor any stated prerequisites or context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and purpose sentence.

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