SimpleACME DNS-01 setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that output contains placeholders only and that no credentials should ever be passed — but says nothing about the shape of the returned config or whether files are written.

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?

A single dense sentence with the output constraint front-loaded and the credential prohibition appended. Nothing is wasted and the most important caveat appears before an agent forms assumptions.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only generator with no output schema, the essential safety caveat (placeholders, no credentials) is present. However, an agent still cannot tell what the returned configuration looks like or how this differs from get_setup_guide, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the domain must be a public hostname (useful, non-obvious), but leaves the client enum's three values and their implications completely unexplained, so half the input surface remains undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Build) and resource (client configuration) and qualifies the output as placeholder-only for a public hostname. It does not name the supported clients (traefik, win-acme, certbot) or differentiate itself from siblings like get_setup_guide, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (generate_update_script, get_setup_guide, get_service_info) or which situation selects this one. The 'never supply credentials' line is a constraint on invocation, not a usage rule for choosing between tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is placeholder-only and is never executed, which is useful clarification but largely echoes readOnlyHint. It says nothing about what the placeholders contain, whether the script needs credentials filled in, or what form the result takes.

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?

A single sentence of roughly a dozen words with the action front-loaded and the two constraining facts (placeholder-only, not executed) following immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a one-parameter generator with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the return value vague: an agent cannot tell whether it receives raw script text, a file path, or a structured object, nor what the placeholders represent. Given the simplicity of the tool the gap is modest but real.

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 is one required parameter (language) whose enum values are self-explanatory and are restated in the description as "Bash or PowerShell." However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly state that language selects the script dialect or that it is required, so it only partially compensates for the empty 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 uses a specific verb ("Generate") plus a concrete resource ("Bash or PowerShell DNS update starter"), and the qualifiers "placeholder-only" and "does not run it" bound the outcome. It does not name any sibling, but the operation is clearly distinct from build_client_config, get_service_info, and get_setup_guide, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 phrase "placeholder-only ... does not run it" implies the intended use case (you want a starting scaffold, not execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for scaffolding rather than performing DNS updates.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the data is "public," implying no authentication is required. It says nothing about whether the facts are static or live, or about caching/staleness.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key qualifier ("public") front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves substance unstated rather than wasted.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the main remaining need is a hint at what the tool actually returns. The description only gestures at "facts and limitations," so an agent cannot anticipate the response contents or judge relevance. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters with no required fields, so parameter semantics are effectively moot and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by not mentioning any inputs.

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 pairs a clear verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("public SimpleACME service facts and limitations"), so an agent knows it retrieves static service metadata. What constitutes "facts and limitations" (versions, endpoints, quotas, supported features) is left vague, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_setup_guide.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_setup_guide, build_client_config, or generate_update_script, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is the word "limitations," which weakly implies checking constraints before configuration work.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered without the description. The description adds only the word "public," hinting that no authentication is required, but says nothing about the format, freshness, or version-specificity of the returned guidance.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word carries 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?

For a trivial one-enum-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential who/what. The main remaining gap is that, absent an output schema, it never indicates what form the guidance takes (e.g., markdown text, steps, config snippets).

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 is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but its enum of traefik, win-acme and certbot is self-documenting. The description's phrase "a supported ACME client" adds the useful constraint that only enum values are valid, yet it does not say how unsupported clients are handled or what each client's guidance contains.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("public integration guidance") and scopes it to "a supported ACME client." This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like build_client_config and generate_update_script, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "public integration guidance" implies the tool is for retrieving documentation rather than generating or configuring anything, which indirectly separates it from its siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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