pbs_node_disk_smart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY', notes no self-test trigger, and outlines the return format (status, attributes, wearout). It also mentions the PROXIMO_PBS_* config requirement, though it could be more detailed about authorization.

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: two short sentences that front-load the critical 'READ-ONLY' label. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, behavior, config requirement, and return fields. It does not mention error conditions or parameter combinations, but the existence of an output schema likely covers return details.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implicitly references the disk parameter and config requirement but does not elucidate parameter syntax or options beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'get SMART attributes and health for one disk on a PBS node.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like pbs_node_disks_list (list disks) and pbs_node_disk_wipe (destructive write).

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 mentions it is the GET form and does not trigger a self-test, implying a safe usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like pbs_node_disks_list for disk listing or pbs_node_disk_wipe for wiping.

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