pbs_notification_endpoint_get

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as 'READ-ONLY' and mentions a configuration prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config'). With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it omits details like error conditions or response format (but output schema covers the latter).

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 of 14 words, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' for immediate clarity. Every word contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of a get operation, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the full config retrieval and the configuration need. However, it could explicitly note that the endpoint is identified by name and type.

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 the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides no extra semantics beyond what the schema already contains, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the specific verb 'get', the resource 'PBS notification endpoint', and the scope 'full type-specific config'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list (which returns summaries) and create/update/delete.

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 read-only usage but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the list endpoint. It lacks guidance on alternatives or exclusions, though the 'full type-specific config' hints at use cases where detailed configuration is needed.

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