pbs_remote_scan

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

The description labels the tool as 'READ-ONLY', indicating non-destructive behavior, and includes an 'ADVERSARIAL' warning that returned content originates from the remote PBS, cautioning about externally-authored data. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure, though it could mention rate limits or auth details.

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 relatively concise with two labeled sections ('READ-ONLY' and 'ADVERSARIAL') that front-load critical information. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly tightened by merging related points.

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 and the tool's read-only nature, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and an adversarial warning. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. Slightly more detail on what 'datastores' entails would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by referencing pbs_remotes_list for the 'name' parameter and explaining proximo_target's purpose, but does not provide format or constraint details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 datastores on a remote PBS, with the specific verb 'list' and resource 'datastores accessible on a configured remote PBS'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbs_remotes_list (which lists remote configs) by emphasizing its role in discovery before pbs_pull/pbs_push.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'BEFORE pbs_pull/pbs_push instead of guessing remote_store blind', providing clear context for when to invoke it. It also mentions the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config', though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives.

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