List Prune Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields (ID, store, schedule, retention settings, namespace, disabled status), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a short 'Returns:' section. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool is a simple list operation with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world). The description completely covers what it does and what it returns. The only minor gap is no explicit statement about whether this list is affected by namespaces or permissions, but the openWorldHint and sibling context mitigate that. Overall, complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, as there are no properties). The description adds meaning by detailing the exact fields returned in the array, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Since there are 0 params, baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description provides additional relevant info.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all configured scheduled prune jobs'), and it clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific job type (prune jobs) as opposed to sync jobs, verification jobs, tasks, etc. The first sentence is clear and direct.

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 implicitly indicates this is for listing scheduled prune jobs, and the return field list clarifies what information is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like pbs_prune_datastore (which performs pruning) or pbs_list_verification_jobs. Context is clear but no exclusions are mentioned.

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