pbs_traffic_controls_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, lists the returned fields (rate-in, rate-out, network targets, comment), and mentions a configuration prerequisite. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or pagination, but for a list tool these are not critical.

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 extremely concise: two informative sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes sibling guidance and a prerequisite in a compact format.

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 (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and a key prerequisite. The single optional parameter is well-documented in the schema. Some might want mention of multi-target handling, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 PBS traffic-control bandwidth-limit rules, explicitly marks it as read-only, and lists the return fields. It distinctively identifies the resource and action, differentiating it from siblings like pbs_traffic_control_upsert and pbs_traffic_control_delete.

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 using pbs_traffic_control_upsert for creating or modifying rules, providing a clear alternative. It also notes the prerequisite 'PROXIMO_PBS_* config'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the guidance is sufficient given the sibling context.

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