pbs_run_verify

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

The description discloses async execution, return value (UPID), and required conditions (PBS_ALLOW_WRITE=true and confirm=true). These go beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and packs essential details (bitrot purpose, default skip, async, auth) without redundancy.

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?

It covers the high-level behavior, async nature, default policy, and auth requirement, which is good for an async task trigger. Despite lacking parameter detail, the presence of an output schema and the compact description make it reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

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, but it only mentions 'confirm=true' and the default 30-day behavior. It does not explain the other seven parameters such as backup_id, datastore, backup_type, or outdated_after, leaving the agent without guidance for targeted verification.

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's action: 'Trigger a verify task' and explains what verify does ('re-reads every chunk and confirms it matches its expected hash, catching bitrot'). This distinguishes it from sibling maintenance tools like pbs_run_gc.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by mentioning the default skip of recently verified snapshots, implying it's for integrity checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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