Run Verification

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the default for ignore_verified (true), the conditional re-verify behavior via outdated_after, and the return of a task UPID. This supplements the annotations which already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior.

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 succinct with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list and return value. No redundant sentences or fluff.

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 completely described for practical invocation: purpose, parameters, and return type. The only missing piece is clarification of its relationship to the sibling pbs_run_verification_job, which is a minor gap in context.

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 100%, so the description does not need to restate parameter meanings. It does add the default for ignore_verified and explicitly marks optionality, which slightly exceeds the schema, but otherwise repeats schema descriptions.

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 'Start a verification job on a datastore to check backup integrity', which uses a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from list-type siblings like pbs_list_verification_jobs, though pbs_run_verification_job is not addressed.

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 implies usage for starting backup integrity checks, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. Given the presence of a similarly named sibling (pbs_run_verification_job), the lack of differentiation is a notable gap.

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