pbs_tfa_webauthn_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as READ-ONLY and mentions the config requirement, but does not detail other behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is adequate but 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 a single sentence that front-loads the READ-ONLY nature, followed by the resource and dependency. Every word serves a purpose, and there is 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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It specifies the config fields and the config dependency. It could mention the distinction from user-level TFA config or that it's server-wide, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a read-only retrieval tool with good structured data.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'proximo_target', with a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not improve parameter understanding.

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 is READ-ONLY and retrieves the server-wide WebAuthn relying-party config, specifying the exact fields (id/origin/rp/allow-subdomains). This makes the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like pbs_tfa_webauthn_set.

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 the tool is for reading the WebAuthn config, and mentions the dependency on PROXIMO_PBS_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbs_tfa_webauthn_set) or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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