pbs_node_disk_zfs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly declares the tool is 'READ-ONLY', indicating a safe operation. It also states that it returns a summary only, not the full vdev tree, which sets expectations. No contradictions or omissions beyond what is reasonable for a simple list operation.

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 at two sentences, with the most critical information ('READ-ONLY') front-loaded. Every sentence provides value: the first states the purpose and safe nature, the second lists return fields and distinguishes from a sibling. No unnecessary 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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented), the description still adds value by listing the fields returned. It covers the summary vs full detail distinction, config requirement, and safe nature. The description is complete for a list tool, with no apparent gaps.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema: it mentions a config prerequisite but does not elaborate on the 'node' or 'proximo_target' parameters. The parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear.

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 'list zpools' and 'READ-ONLY', clearly defining the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool pbs_node_disk_zfs_get by noting that this tool provides a summary only, while the sibling returns the full vdev tree for a single pool.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for listing zpool summaries) and explicitly mentions an alternative (pbs_node_disk_zfs_get for full vdev tree). It also notes a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other disk listing tools like pbs_node_disks_list or pbs_node_disk_directory_list, which are present among siblings.

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