pbs_tape_drive_cartridge_memory

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears disclosure. It clearly marks the tool as READ-ONLY, explains it reads directly off the physical chip, and notes the config requirement. It does not mention potential side effects or permissions beyond config, but the read-only nature is well communicated.

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: the first covers purpose and output format, the second adds adversarial nature and config requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 100% parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the output format (id/name/value triples), the read-only and adversarial behavior, and config dependency. Minor gap: what 'ADVERSARIAL' precisely entails could be expanded, but sufficient for selection.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds context about 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config' linking to the proximo_target parameter, but does not elaborate on drive or output format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 reads LTO cartridge memory attributes (id/name/value triples) from the physical medium's onboard chip. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tape drive tools by focusing on MAM attributes and adversarial nature.

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 'ADVERSARIAL' and 'no pattern/enum constraint,' implying advanced/raw usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbs_tape_drive_status). The config prerequisite is noted but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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