Slurm Preview

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important behavioral trait — that no job is submitted, i.e. no remote side effects — but says nothing about whether a remote connection is required, whether the script must exist, or what the preview returns.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than maximal information density.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain what a preview actually yields (rendered script, resolved directives, validation errors) and what the inputs must look like. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing before invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and largely fails: "remote batch script" loosely maps to script_path and "remote" hints at the project context, but project_id and script_path formats (path relative to what? remote vs local?) are never clarified.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Preview") with a specific resource ("remote batch script") and explicitly contrasts itself with job submission, which separates it from sibling slurm_submit. It is clear but does not name siblings directly, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

"Without submitting a job" implies this is the safe dry-run path before slurm_submit, which is meaningful implied guidance. However, it never states explicitly when to prefer this over slurm_submit or what conditions make a preview unnecessary.

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