pbs_health_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about its aggregating behavior (one-call report spanning multiple subsystems) and its role as a triage tool. It does not describe return format, but an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the added context is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and the list of health aspects, and the second gives usage direction. No wasted words; every clause contributes meaning.

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 a complex aggregator with multiple parameters and an output schema. The description clearly states the purpose, the scope of the report, and the appropriate usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without needing to know every return field in advance.

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%; the tool description does not explain the parameters. While the schema provides descriptions for task_hours and stale_hours, the main description only mentions 'datastore' without detailing the configurable look-back windows. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer that backup freshness and failed-task windows are adjustable.

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 it is a health report for a datastore with a specific verb ('health report') and resource ('datastore'), and enumerates the exact aspects covered (storage, node load, GC, snapshots, backup freshness, corrupt groups, tasks). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it replaces separate status/gc/tasks/groups calls.

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 explicitly says 'Start here for any "is PBS okay?" question' and 'it replaces separate status/gc/tasks/groups calls', providing clear when-to-use guidance and pointing to the alternative approach of using individual tools. This is strong usage direction.

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