pbs_node_disk_directory_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly declares 'READ-ONLY', lists return fields, and states the configuration requirement. This covers safety and data behavior beyond the schema. However, it omits any mention of rate limits or idempotency.

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 extremely concise, with three short phrases front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, prerequisites, and return fields. It does not need to explain pagination due to the small size of mount units. The tool is simple and the description is complete.

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% so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the only extra is the config requirement, which is not parameter-focused. A score of 3 is appropriate given high 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 'list systemd datastore mount units (the directory backend) on a PBS node,' specifying both the action and the exact resource. The 'READ-ONLY' prefix further distinguishes it from write operations among sibling PBS disk tools.

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 a clear context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pbs_node_disk_zfs_list' or 'pbs_node_disks_list'. The prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config' is mentioned, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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