pbs_notification_matcher_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool as 'READ-ONLY', which signals no side effects and safety. However, it lacks details on authorization beyond the config requirement, error behavior (e.g., if matcher not found), or confirmation that no state is modified. The mention of 'full config' hints at the output but is not explicit.

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 with two short sentences. The 'READ-ONLY' label is front-loaded for immediate clarity. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It states 'full config', which is adequate. It could mention that this tool complements pbs_notification_matchers_list for individual details, but the description is complete enough for a simple get operation with a named resource.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions a config requirement ('PROXIMO_PBS_* config') which is a global prerequisite, not tied to the parameters. No parameter-specific enrichment.

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 it retrieves the full config of a single PBS notification matcher, using 'get one PBS notification matcher's full config'. The 'READ-ONLY' prefix and the specific resource differentiate it from sibling tools like pbs_notification_matchers_list (list all) and pbs_notification_matcher_set (create/update).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'), which guides the user on when the tool is usable. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or set, but the verb 'get' and the contrast with sibling names (e.g., delete, set) imply a read-only retrieval context.

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