pbs_tape_changer_status

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses read-only behavior and critically warns about the label-text field's trust implications (ADVERSARIAL) and reference to module docstring for taint semantics. This goes beyond simple labeling to inform the agent about data interpretation risks.

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 short and front-loaded with the key purpose ('READ-ONLY: one status entry per drive/slot/import-export bay'). It uses some jargon ('ADVERSARIAL', 'Taint section') which may require context, but overall it is efficiently structured without unnecessary 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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description explains what data is returned, notes config requirements, and highlights a security nuance. It does not clarify caching behavior or output schema details, but the output schema exists to fill that gap, so completeness is good.

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%, with clear descriptions for name, cache, and proximo_target. The tool description adds no further explanation of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without extra 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 it's a READ-ONLY status tool for tape changers, returning one entry per drive/slot/import-export bay. It identifies the specific resource (changer status) and the verb (status), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pbs_tape_changer_get or pbs_tape_drive_status, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config,' indicating when the tool can be used, and includes an 'ADVERSARIAL' warning about label-text field trust. However, it does not suggest when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion conditions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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