pbs_list_groups

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by noting that groups with zero files are flagged as likely corrupt, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotation data.

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 sentences with a clear front-loaded verb and resource. Every word adds value, and the structure is extremely efficient—no filler or redundant content.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, and a key behavioral quirk. An output schema exists so return values are already specified; the main missing piece is detailed datastore parameter semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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% and the description only mentions 'on a datastore' without explaining the datastore parameter's semantics. It does not clarify whether the parameter is required, what a null value means, or how it affects the results. This leaves a notable gap for the sole parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('backup groups'), specifies the scope ('on a datastore'), and mentions the key fields returned (snapshot count, last-backup time, owner, file count). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_list_snapshots and pbs_list_datastores.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list all backup groups on a datastore. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for a list operation.

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