submit_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: no waiting, defaults for omitted backend/host, client_request_id retry behavior (identical retry returns original, conflicting rejected), FIFO queue semantics, and allowed Slurm options. It also addresses an edge case (lost creation response). No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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?

The description is moderately long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with purpose, then details defaults, retry, queue, Slurm, and usage warnings. No redundancy; structure is logical. Slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 14 parameters and no annotations, the description covers important behavioral and usage aspects, including exclusions and retry pitfalls. It does not detail every parameter or the return value, but an output schema exists. Overall, it provides substantial context for a complex tool, though not exhaustive.

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 lacks property descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining backend/host defaults, client_request_id semantics, Slurm options allowed keys, and queue behavior. However, many parameters (cwd, env, artifacts, resources, capture_logs, timeouts) are not explained, leaving gaps. Still, it adds meaningful context for several key parameters.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Explicitly submit one asynchronous or fan-out job without waiting.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run (synchronous) and run_job (MCP Tasks). Purpose is directly stated and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Do not use this as the default for a single command with uncertain duration; use run. Do not use it for MCP Tasks creation; use run_job.' It also warns against resubmitting on disconnection/timeout and explains retry semantics, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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