pbs_gc_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds scoping ('last' statistics) and the specific statistics returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential delays or the meaning of null datastore. This matches the get_calls calibration example where annotations carried the safety burden, scoring 3.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and then enumerates the exact statistics. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool is a simple read operation with a comprehensive output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together provide a fairly complete picture. The missing usage guidance and parameter explanation are gaps, but the core behavior is clear. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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 does not mention the 'datastore' parameter at all. The schema provides only the name and default (null), leaving ambiguity about what datastore means or what happens when omitted. This is a significant gap, though the single optional parameter is relatively self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the exact resource ('last garbage-collection statistics') plus the specific data points (bytes referenced, pending, removed, flagged-bad chunks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_run_gc or pbs_datastore_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with pbs_run_gc or pbs_prune. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and read-only annotations, not explicitly stated.

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