pbs_node_disk_zfs_get

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY, which is critical for safe invocation. It describes the output as 'status/vdev tree' and notes configuration prerequisites. However, additional details about error handling or exact response structure are not provided, though an output schema exists.

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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: read-only declaration, what it retrieves, and configuration requirement. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 tool with a single required parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral traits, configuration needs, and scope. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 describes all three parameters sufficiently. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds overall context but not parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function: get one zpool's status/vdev tree on a PBS node. It explicitly marks it as READ-ONLY. The mention of the identical PVE endpoint but missing Proximo wrapper distinguishes this PBS-specific tool from its PVE counterpart and sibling tools like pbs_node_disk_zfs_list.

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 context: it is for PBS nodes, READ-ONLY, and requires PROXIMO_PBS_* configuration. While it does not explicitly list when to use or not use alternatives, the name and sibling list imply it is for getting a single pool (vs listing all pools). The PVE endpoint clarification helps avoid misuse.

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