pbs_node_identity

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

No annotations provided. The description declares read-only nature and configuration requirement, which are good. However, it does not elaborate on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. The output schema exists, so return structure is covered.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences front-loaded with key attributes (READ-ONLY, identity source, trust level, prerequisites). No superfluous text.

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 simplicity (returns identity), the description sufficiently covers purpose, read-only nature, and prerequisites. Output schema handles return format. Minor gap: no mention of typical use case or result format.

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% with descriptive parameter fields. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it's a read-only tool returning the unique server identity from /etc/machine-id. The phrase 'unique server identity' and reference to machine-id provide specific purpose. No ambiguity.

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?

Mentions it's read-only and requires PROXIMO_PBS_* config, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Context signals show no sibling tool provides the same function, so usage is implied but not explicit.

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