pbs_remote_scan_namespaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as READ-ONLY, alerts about adversarial content, and mentions the config requirement (Proximo_PBS_*). This provides essential behavioral information beyond a simple 'list'.

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 two sentences plus a tag, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and the purpose. Every sentence adds value, no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers read-only nature, adversarial warning, and config needs. However, it does not mention if the listing is exhaustive or limited, leaving a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'remote_ns values' but does not directly explain the parameters 'name', 'store', or 'proximo_target'. Minimal added value.

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 namespaces on a remote datastore, with a specific purpose: to discover valid remote_ns values for pbs_pull/pbs_push. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('namespaces on a remote's datastore'), and differentiates from siblings like pbs_remote_scan_groups.

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 says when to use (before running pbs_pull/pbs_push) and warns about adversarial remote-authored names. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but provides clear context for usage.

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