hpc_submit_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds that execution is via sbatch and that the working directory is the script's directory, but says nothing about the job being queued asynchronously, the returned job ID, or failure modes such as an invalid or non-writable script.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism (sbatch) followed by the key constraint. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the mechanics and precondition but omits what the call returns (a job ID?) and any note that the submission is asynchronous. With no output schema to fall back on, that is a visible gap, though the annotations adequately cover the safety profile.

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 100% for the single script_path parameter (documented as an absolute path on the cluster), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's writable-location constraint adds minor eligibility context but no format or syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit an existing batch script with sbatch), which is unambiguous. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling hpc_generate_sbatch, but the sibling is not named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 one real precondition: the script must be in a writable location, and notes it runs from the script's directory. It offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, e.g. that hpc_generate_sbatch should be used first if no script exists yet, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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