pbs_datastores_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It clearly declares 'READ-ONLY', describes the output (avail, error, estimated-full-date via linear regression, gc-status), and mentions a config requirement (PROXIMO_PBS_*). This provides good understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its side-effect-free nature.

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 composed of two sentences that are highly informative and free of fluff. The first sentence fronts the core purpose and outputs, the second adds sibling differentiation and config requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 is read-only with one optional parameter and has an output schema, the description covers purpose, distinctiveness, config requirement, and key outputs. It mentions 'every datastore' implying no filtering. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or limits, but the context is sufficiently complete for this simple 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?

The only parameter (proximo_target) has 100% schema coverage, which already documents that it selects a target from multi-target config and defaults to single/default. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; the config mention is about environment setting, not the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool for capacity usage and estimated-full dates for every datastore. It lists specific outputs (avail, error, estimated-full-date, gc-status) and distinguishes itself from pbs_metrics_status by noting this is for capacity planning. The verb 'usage' combined with resource description makes its purpose 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 explicitly differentiates from pbs_metrics_status as 'performance samples' vs 'capacity planning'. It states read-only nature and config requirement. However, it could be more explicit about when to choose this tool over other datastore-related tools like pbs_datastore_status or pbs_datastores_list.

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