pbs_tape_media_list

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

With no annotations, the description communicates that the tool is read-only, warns that label-text has no pattern constraint, and notes the PROXIMO_PBS_* config requirement. These details go beyond the schema but omit potential side effects or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first states core function, the second provides adversarial and config notes. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, filter option, read-only guarantee, adversarial caveat, and config requirement. It does not elaborate on return values or compare to other list tools, but the output schema handles that.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds practical context: update_status defaults to false despite PBS default, proximo_target allows per-call targeting, and update_status_changer scopes to one changer. This exceeds the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 registered backup media with an optional pool filter. The tool name 'pbs_tape_media_list' is distinct from sibling tools like 'pbs_tape_media_content' and 'pbs_tape_media_status_get', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for listing media but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as 'pbs_tape_media_content' or 'pbs_tape_media_sets'. No when-not or alternative guidance is given, though the adversarial warning hints at output considerations.

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