hpc_job_efficiency

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is free to add behavioral context instead: it signals the tool applies only to a *finished* job, which is a real constraint (running/pending jobs won't yield efficiency data), and identifies the data source (seff/sacct). Good added value beyond annotations.

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: the first defines what is returned, the second states the use. Zero waste and the content is front-loaded.

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 query with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the metric returned and its purpose. It could go further by noting behavior for not-yet-finished jobs, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format examples for both simple and array job IDs ('123456' / '123456_7'). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: it reports CPU and memory efficiency for a finished job, and names the underlying mechanisms (seff/sacct). An agent can distinguish it from generic job tools, though it never explicitly names siblings like hpc_job_details or hpc_job_history that might overlap.

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?

"Use it to right-size future requests" gives an implied purpose, which is a use case rather than selection guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over hpc_job_details or hpc_job_history, nor that it only applies post-completion as an explicit condition.

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