submit_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses durability, idempotent retry behavior, rejection of conflicting retries, and configuration defaults. It does not cover failure cases or permissions, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence adds useful detail—core behavior, defaults, idempotency, and Slurm option constraints—without fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is complex with 11 parameters and an output schema exists, but the description omits explanations for several parameters and does not mention how the returned ID relates to sibling tools like get_job_status or cancel_job. It covers the essential semantics but is not fully complete for such a versatile tool.

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. It adds meaning for backend, host, client_request_id, and slurm_options, but leaves many parameters unexplained, including command, cwd, env, name, artifacts, timeout_seconds, and stall_timeout_seconds. This is a significant gap for an 11-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool submits a durable job, returns a stable ID, and does not wait. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like run_job, wait_for_job, and get_job_status, making its purpose 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?

The description explains important usage context: omitted backend/host use defaults, client_request_id is for idempotent retries, and Slurm options are limited to a specific set. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but 'without waiting' and the sibling tool names imply when to use this versus wait_for_job, earning a high score.

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