pbs_acme_challenge_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool as READ-ONLY, specifies it has no required parameters, and describes the output (id/name/schema/type). It adds context about satisfying plugin type+data pairing. However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, or error cases.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the read-only nature and purpose, then adds the config requirement. Every sentence provides value.

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 simple listing tool with output schema, the description covers the purpose, output fields, and config prerequisite. It lacks mention of the optional proximo_target parameter but otherwise is complete for its complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description says 'No params' which is mostly accurate (only optional proximo_target) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. There is a slight inaccuracy as the optional param exists.

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 the tool lists the catalog of known ACME challenge plugin types with specific output fields (id/name/schema/type per entry) and explains its purpose (the parameter schema each plugin type+data pairing must satisfy). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling ACME tools.

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 reading the challenge schema before plugin creation/update but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus siblings like pbs_acme_plugin_create. It mentions needing PROXIMO_PBS_* config but offers no alternative guidance.

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