pbs_tape_scan_changers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly labels the tool as READ-ONLY and states it is device-reported, not operator config, indicating non-destructive read. The 'No params' statement is slightly misleading given the optional parameter, but the schema clarifies it. No mention of auth or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY'. Each sentence adds value. The minor inaccuracy of 'No params' slightly detracts from otherwise excellent conciseness.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description includes prerequisite config, response shape reference, and differentiation from operator config. The 'No params' statement could cause confusion about the optional param, but overall context is sufficient given output schema.

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% with one optional parameter (proximo_target) well-described. The description says 'No params', which contradicts the schema and could mislead an agent. While 'No params' may refer to the scan operation itself, it still creates confusion and adds no value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'autodetect' and resource 'SCSI tape changers' with scope 'attached to the PBS host'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is READ-ONLY, device-reported, and shares response shape with pbs_tape_scan_drives, differentiating it from operator config tools like pbs_tape_changer_create.

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 when to use (autodetect hardware changers) and when not (operator config). It references sibling pbs_tape_scan_drives for response shape comparison. The prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config' is stated. However, no explicit alternatives are listed beyond the implied differentiation.

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