ACME Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the action enum values, which clarify the scope of queries, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the action options. It is efficient and has no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action list, but it is appropriately sized.

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 read-only info tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain when 'id' is required (e.g., for get_plugin) or what 'directories' returns, which could leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly for each action.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the action enum values but does not explain the relationship between 'id' and 'action' (e.g., that id is needed for get_plugin). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Query ACME information.' It also enumerates the three actions (list_plugins, get_plugin, directories), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_acme_cert and proxmox_acme_account. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings by name, so it loses one point.

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 by listing the action enum values, which tells an agent what operations are available. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus proxmox_acme_cert or proxmox_acme_account, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing. The context is clear for the action parameter but not for tool selection among ACME-related siblings.

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