Slurm List Artifacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it does not say whether the job must still be running, what "bounded" means (size/count caps), whether listing is read-only and safe, or what happens on an unknown job_id. Only the output-directory scope is disclosed.

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 tight sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but it is not padded or repetitive.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves too much open: return shape (file list? paths? sizes?), ordering, truncation behavior, and error conditions are all 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 coverage is 0% and the single job_id parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. "A registered job's" hints the ID must come from a prior submit/ensure call, but format, source, and validity expectations are not stated.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("artifacts") scoped to a registered job's project output directory, which distinguishes it from log-oriented siblings like slurm_read_log. However, it never names or contrasts any sibling, and "bounded artifacts" is undefined jargon.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. whether the job must be in a terminal state), and no mention of alternatives such as slurm_get_job or slurm_read_log. The only implicit cue is that a job_id is required.

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