pbs_admin_traffic_control_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly declares 'READ-ONLY', indicates the returned data (counters and operator config), and mentions the required configuration. It does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty rule set) or behavior of the optional parameter, but for a simple read-only status tool, the level of transparency is high.

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 concise, front-loaded with critical information (READ-ONLY, live data), and efficiently contrasts with sibling tools. Every sentence adds value 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?

With an output schema present (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the return values are covered. The description explains the tool's purpose, differentiation from siblings, and access requirements. For a straightforward read-only status tool, it is complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100% (one optional parameter). The description does not reiterate or enhance the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with 'READ-ONLY: LIVE current traffic (cur-rate-in/cur-rate-out) per traffic-control rule, plus the rule's own config.' This clearly states the verb (read), resource (traffic control rules), and data returned. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling pbs_traffic_controls_list and mentions pbs_traffic_control_upsert for modifications, providing precise differentiation.

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 explicitly contrasts with pbs_traffic_controls_list (config-CRUD view) and directs users to pbs_traffic_control_upsert for modifications. It also notes that the tool is 'REVIEWED_TRUSTED' and requires 'PROXIMO_PBS_* config', giving clear context on when and how to use it.

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