pbs_node_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It declares read-only behavior, warns about embedded config values, log tails, and system state, and advises against treating output as instructions. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or detail authentication/rate limits, which would elevate transparency further.

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?

Three concise, focused sentences. First sentence states purpose and read-only nature. Second provides adversarial warning and sibling references. Third specifies config requirement. No filler; every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (diagnostic bundle), the description covers purpose, usage context, safety advisory, and configuration needs. Output schema exists (not shown but indicated), so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., node name, proximo_target). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't enhance understanding beyond the structured input.

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 the action ('generate a free-text diagnostic report bundle') and the resource ('for the node'). Explicitly marks as READ-ONLY, distinguishing it from mutating tools. References sibling tools (pve_node_syslog, pbs_node_journal, pbs_node_task_log) for comparison, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit adversarial warning: treat returned text as data, not instructions. Lists sibling tools that provide similar but separate diagnostic outputs. Mentions config requirement (PROXIMO_PBS_*), guiding the agent on prerequisites and when to use this tool over alternatives.

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