pbs_tape_scan_drives

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is READ-ONLY, returns device-reported (not operator config) data, and notes the same 'taint posture' as similar tools. This gives the agent a clear understanding of safety and data origin.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and nature, the second lists returned fields and relates to known tools. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers behavior, return fields, parameters, and prerequisites. No further information is needed for an agent to understand and use it correctly.

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?

The only parameter, proximo_target, is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states it is a READ-ONLY tool that 'autodetect tape drives attached to the PBS host'. It lists the returned fields (kind/major/minor/model/path/serial/vendor). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the same taint posture as pve_hardware_list / pbs_node_disks_list.

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 for when to use (autodiscovery of tape drives), states it is read-only, no params (except optional proximo_target), and mentions the prerequisite PROXIMO_PBS_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives among the many tape-related siblings (e.g., pbs_tape_drive_list).

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