pbs_node_certificates_list

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

The description states 'READ-ONLY' and lists the fields returned, which is good behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it could disclose more about potential side effects, pagination, or error conditions. Still, the read-only nature and return data are well covered.

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, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', then outlines purpose, return data, alternatives, and configuration requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 description is fully comprehensive given the tool's simplicity: it covers purpose, behavior, alternatives, prerequisites, and return fields. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detail on return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters. It mentions the node implicitly but provides no additional detail on format or constraints.

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 TLS certificates on a PBS node, specifies the return fields (filename, subject, issuer, validity dates, fingerprint), and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming related upload and delete 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 provides explicit guidance: use this for listing, use pbs_node_cert_upload for add/replace, use pbs_node_cert_delete for removal. It also notes the prerequisite configuration (PROXIMO_PBS_* config).

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