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 full burden. It declares 'READ-ONLY' upfront and enumerates the returned fields (rate-in/rate-out limits, network targets, comment). It does not disclose authentication details or pagination behavior, but for a list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise with three sentences: the first states read-only nature, the second lists returned data, the third gives guidance for modifications and config requirements. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with key information.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, list operation with output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, returned fields, related tool for mutations, and configuration prerequisite. No evident gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which already includes a thorough explanation of 'proximo_target'. The tool description adds no additional parameter information 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?

The description clearly states the action ('list'), the resource ('PBS traffic-control bandwidth-limit rules'), and the scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming 'pbs_traffic_control_upsert' for create/modify, effectively differentiating the read-only nature of this tool.

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 by explicitly stating the tool is 'READ-ONLY' and directing the user to 'pbs_traffic_control_upsert' for modifications. It also mentions the necessary configuration (PROXIMO_PBS_*). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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