Slurm Watch Job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails: it never says whether the tool blocks/polls, how long it waits, what 'handoff registration' means, or what a successful verification returns. The external-terminal prerequisite hints at hidden state but is not explained.

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 with no filler, so it is structurally tight and front-loaded. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy—there is simply too little content for a tool with this much unexplained machinery.

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 Slurm job-watching tool with two fully undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: target resource, blocking behavior, return values, and parameter meaning.

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% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither job_id (the required parameter) nor server_alias. An agent gets no meaning for either argument from any source.

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 name implies watching a Slurm job, but the description says only 'Verify local handoff registration,' which is vague and never names the resource or what is being verified/watched. It gives an agent no way to distinguish it from slurm_get_job, slurm_list_jobs, or slurm_read_log.

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?

It states an environmental prerequisite ('Run hpc-agent watch in the original Codex terminal first') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus slurm_get_job or slurm_list_jobs. The prerequisite is opaque and reads more like an error-recovery note than a selection rule.

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