pbs_admin_sync_jobs_list

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

Discloses read-only nature and a config dependency. With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The output schema (present) covers return structure, but the description could elaborate on pagination or permissions beyond config.

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 zero filler. Key labels ('READ-ONLY', 'REVIEWED_TRUSTED') are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the alternative tool reference is compact.

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 presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (read-only, config requirement) and provides a usage alternative. Minor gap in distinguishing from other job-listing siblings, but overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All three parameters have comprehensive descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 read-only job-level view of sync jobs, uses the label 'READ-ONLY', and explicitly distinguishes itself by referencing pbs_job_run for manual triggering. The verb 'list' is implied by the noun 'view', and the resource 'sync jobs' is specific.

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?

Indicates when to use pbs_job_run as an alternative and mentions the config requirement (PROXIMO_PBS_*). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pbs_jobs_list or pbs_admin_gc_jobs_list, which could lead to ambiguity for agents choosing among them.

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