pbs_prune_dry_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful context by explicitly using 'Preview' and 'would be kept or dropped', reinforcing that no changes are made. It does not disclose additional behavior like output format or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Preview') and resource ('snapshots'). Every word adds value, with no 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 has a moderate complexity with multiple retention policy parameters, but an output schema exists so return values do not need to be described. The description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does and when to invoke it, though it does not elaborate on parameter interactions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 low (only backup_id and backup_type have descriptions). The description only mentions 'retention policy' generically and does not explain the keep_* parameters (keep_last, keep_daily, etc.) that are essential for configuring the policy. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('snapshots in a backup group'), and explains the purpose ('would be kept or dropped by a given retention policy'). This differentiates it from the sibling tool 'pbs_prune', which likely performs the actual pruning.

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 implies the tool is used to preview retention policy effects before actually pruning, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over 'pbs_prune' or provide any alternative/exclusion guidance. Usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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