pbs_tape_drive_read_label

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

Discloses read-only nature and adversarial content trustworthiness, but fails to mention that the 'inventorize' parameter (if True) writes to the inventory database, contradicting the 'READ-ONLY' claim. No annotations are present, so the description should have covered this side effect. Lacks permission or rate-limit info.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear sections: purpose, adversarial warning, config requirement. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Covers main purpose and adversarial warning, but omits the inventorize side effect and does not explain the output (though output schema exists). The config requirement is vague. Adequate for a simple read tool but missing important behavioral detail.

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 describes all three parameters (drive, inventorize, proximo_target). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states 'read the mounted media's label' with specific items: label-text, media-set uuid/pool/ctime, encryption key fingerprint. The verb 'read' and resource 'label' are explicit, and the tool name supports it. Distinct from sibling tools like pbs_tape_drive_status or pbs_tape_drive_label_media.

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 provides clear context (read-only, adversarial warning, config requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is so specific that usage is implied; no explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons are needed.

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