pbs_datastore_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It marks the operation as read-only and describes the return values, but lacks details on error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens if the datastore does not exist.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second details return values, third provides usage guidance and alternatives. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are redundant but welcome. The description covers core behavior and return contents. Misses explicit mention that the datastore must exist, but overall sufficient for a read-only status tool.

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 50%, and the description adds context for the 'store' parameter by mentioning pbs_datastores_list to enumerate datastores, but does not specify format or validation. The proximo_target parameter already has a schema description, so the tool description adds little.

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 the tool retrieves runtime usage statistics (total, used, available bytes) for one PBS datastore, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_datastores_list and pbs_gc_status by naming their specific uses.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and suggests alternatives (pbs_datastores_list for enumeration, pbs_gc_status for GC state), though it does not explicitly 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.