pmg_apt_repositories_get

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the lack of annotations: it declares 'READ-ONLY', warns that the shape is not live-verified ('Smoke-confirm'), explains the API's limitation regarding upgrades, and notes the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* configuration. This adds significant context.

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 moderately concise but contains some redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions from the schema). It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the shape of the response and how fields relate to other tools (pmg_apt_repository_set, pmg_apt_repository_add). It also notes configuration requirements and a caveat about shape verification, providing sufficient context for a read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the tool description mirror the schema exactly. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already offers. 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 the tool's purpose: 'get the current APT repository configuration of a PMG node'. It specifies the verb (get), resource (APT repository configuration), and hints at the read-only nature. It distinguishes from siblings like pmg_apt_repository_add and pmg_apt_repository_set by mentioning their required coordinates.

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 context about when to use the tool: it governs 'visibility and repo config only' and explicitly states that upgrade execution is not exposed. It also mentions prerequisites like PROXIMO_PMG_* config. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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