hpc_job_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by revealing it combines live scontrol data with sacct accounting records, but it does not explain the return shape or what 'full details' encompasses.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is arguably too terse to be fully helpful for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the data sources but does not describe what categories of detail are returned (state, resources, timing, exit code), leaving some ambiguity about output.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the job_id format including example values. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Full details of one job') and even names the data sources (scontrol + sacct), which helps distinguish it from general queue tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hpc_job_history or hpc_job_efficiency that might also return job information.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention hpc_job_history, hpc_job_efficiency, or hpc_queue, so an agent has to infer that this is for detailed single-job inspection rather than list or history queries.

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