pbs_node_config_get

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, masks http-proxy credentials defensively while keeping host:port visible, and requires specific configuration. It also cites an internal docstring for details. It does not cover error scenarios or response size, but the disclosed traits are adequate for a read operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key purpose ('READ-ONLY'). It efficiently lists example settings and masks a behavioral note. The internal reference (docstring fact #10) is less helpful but does not significantly detract. Could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the read-only nature, the description covers the main aspects: what settings are returned, masking behavior, and configuration requirements. It lacks error handling details, but for a straightforward getter, this is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The schema description for 'node' and 'proximo_target' is clear. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'READ-ONLY: PBS node-wide settings', specifying the verb (get), resource (PBS node-wide settings), and scope. It distinguishes itself from write siblings like pbs_node_config_set by emphasizing read-only. The listing of example settings (description, email-from, etc.) solidifies the purpose.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving node-wide configuration, not for modification. The read-only declaration and mention of required configuration ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config') implicitly guide when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use compared to other pbs_node_* tools.

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