pbs_tfa_entry_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only, but omits details on error handling (e.g., entry not found), authentication requirements beyond config, or any side effects. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral context is minimal.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a label. It front-loads the read-only nature. While every word earns its place, the brevity slightly under-utilizes the opportunity to provide more context. Still efficient.

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 comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple getter. It could improve by adding a brief distinction from similar tools, but it is functionally 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter adequately described (e.g., tfa_id explains source). The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema, such as default values or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves a single TFA entry and labels it READ-ONLY. The verb 'get' and resource 'one TFA entry' are specific, distinguishing it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like pbs_tfa_user_get, which could cause confusion.

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 mentions a prerequisite (PROXIMO_PBS_* config) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbs_tfa_list or pbs_tfa_user_get. No context on appropriate scenarios or exclusion criteria is given.

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