pdm_pbs_remote_status

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 implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent behavior. The 'Live-verified' line adds some trust but not behavioral details.

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, using only three lines with a clear colon-delimited structure. It front-loads the diagnostic severity indicator 'DIAGNOSE (LOW):' and includes no redundant words.

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?

The description covers the core function, prerequisite, and configuration need. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need to be explained. A minor gap is the lack of explicit read-only indication, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 50% (only proximo_target has a description). The description adds meaning for the remote parameter by stating its source (pdm_remotes_list), which compensates for the missing schema description. The proximo_target parameter is already described in 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 states 'get node status for a PDM-registered PBS remote', specifying a clear action (get) and resource (node status). The tool name includes 'status', and the description distinguishes it from sibling PDM tools like pdm_node_status.

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 a prerequisite ('remote: remote name from pdm_remotes_list') and a configuration requirement ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config'). It implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing remote node status) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives.

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