Get PBS Node Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what data is returned (e.g., CPU model, core count, usage percentage) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is acceptable given the simple read-only nature of the tool, but it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured: a single introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of return items. It is concise, with no filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded. Every line adds value, and the formatting makes the content easy to scan.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and detailed annotations, the description is complete. It enumerates all the key return fields, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool does or what information it provides. There are no missing elements like prerequisites or return format requirements that would be expected for such a simple status tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps since the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. The description's focus on return values is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, aligning with the baseline of 4 for 0 params.

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's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('detailed status of the PBS node'), listing exactly what information is provided (CPU, memory, disk, swap, load averages, uptime, kernel version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbs_get_version or pbs_list_datastores, which target different resources.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information beyond the implicit context of the tool name.

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