pbs_node_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full weight. It declares the tool as READ-ONLY, indicates it reads specific metrics, and notes the exclusion of the dangerous POST endpoint. Could add more detail on error handling or authorization but is sufficient.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides critical warning, third explains rationale, fourth mentions config. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple read tool with an output schema (not needing return value explanation), the description covers purpose, safety, exclusions, and config requirements. Adequate for the task.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters (node and proximo_target); it only restates the purpose. No additional param details provided.

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 reads a PBS node's memory, CPU, and root disk usage, using a specific verb ('read') and resource (PBS node status). It distinguishes itself from the dangerous POST endpoint by explicitly noting it was not built.

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 guidance: use for read-only status checks, warns against the dangerous POST variant, mentions the required PROXIMO_PBS_* config, and references the tool's safe posture.

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