trmnl_get_plugin_configuration_choices

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses that the underlying HTTP method is POST despite the read semantics, and that choices are 'owner-bound' (tied to the plugin owner's context) — real behavioral context. It says nothing about what a missing resolver, expired credentials, or empty result would produce.

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?

Two short lines with no filler and the purpose is front-loaded, but the brevity crosses into under-specification given the confusing required body parameter.

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?

Three parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage mean the description carries a lot of weight — yet it omits any explanation of the body payload, the meaning of choices/resolvers, and expected results. An agent could not reliably construct a valid call from this.

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 only 33% and the description heavily compensates by showing the URL template, which maps plugin_setting_id and resolver_id to their roles. But the required 'body' object — with revision, cursor, query and a draft ops array containing set/unset/clear_secret — is completely unexplained for what is declared a read operation; an agent has no idea why a read requires draft mutations.

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 verb ('Read') and a resource ('owner-bound remote choices') and gives the exact endpoint template with plugin_setting_id and resolver_id, which does distinguish it from trmnl_get_plugin_configuration. However, 'remote choices' and 'resolver' are unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually returns without opening the schema.

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 this tool should be used instead of trmnl_get_plugin_configuration, trmnl_evaluate_plugin_configuration, or trmnl_get_installation_configuration_choices. The only implicit cue is the endpoint path.

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