pbs_notification_matcher_field_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and config dependency. However, it does not describe the return format or any side effects, and the output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 very concise, using only two sentences with key info front-loaded (READ-ONLY). However, the inaccurate 'No params' statement negatively impacts effectiveness.

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-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and config need. The missing explanation of the optional parameter and the inaccurate 'No params' leave a gap in completeness.

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?

The description states 'No params' despite the schema having an optional 'proximo_target' parameter with a clear description. This contradicts the schema and provides misleading information, failing to add useful meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists all known (field, value) pairs for matcher rules, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pbs_notification_matchers_list (which lists matchers) and pbs_notification_matcher_fields (which may be similar but lacks 'value'). However, the statement 'No params' is inaccurate as there is an optional parameter, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbs_notification_matcher_fields. The description mentions config requirements but does not explain context for use or exclusions.

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