pbs_admin_gc_jobs_list

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description compensates by explicitly declaring the tool as 'READ-ONLY', indicating it has no destructive side effects. It also mentions it is 'SCHEMA-CHECKED (not inferred)', 'REVIEWED_TRUSTED', and requires 'PROXIMO_PBS_* config', which gives the agent confidence in reliability and authentication requirements. However, it could be more explicit about rate limits or concurrency concerns.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (READ-ONLY, SCHEMA-CHECKED, etc.) and provides all essential information without redundancy. It is slightly verbose but packs meaningful details. A minor improvement would be to remove the internal module reference ('see proximo.pbs_admin module docstring fact #1') which may be irrelevant to the agent.

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's complexity (list operation with filtering, alias, relationship to sibling), the description is highly complete. It covers safety (read-only), schema validation, trustworthiness, configuration requirements, and explicit differentiation from similar tools. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, this description provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the 'store' parameter ('Filter to one PBS datastore's GC job. Omit to list all.') and by noting the existence of a path-segment alias, which helps the agent understand the parameter's role in different invocation scenarios.

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 explicitly states it provides a 'job-level view of GC (garbage collection) jobs, max one per datastore, across ALL datastores' and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'pbs_gc_status' which offers 'single-store detail only, no schedule/next-run fields'. This makes the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('across ALL datastores unless `store` filters to one') and when to use the alternative 'pbs_gc_status' (for single-store detail without schedule/next-run fields). It also explains the relationship with the path-based alias, providing comprehensive usage context.

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