pmg_relay_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks the operation as 'read' and provides a version-verified path detail. No side effects or destructive behavior are implied, and the presence of an output schema compensates for missing return value details.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence covers purpose and prerequisite, the second adds a version-specific detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a version nuance. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It is complete enough for the agent to understand what the tool does and what it requires.

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% and the single parameter 'proximo_target' is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'PMG SMTP relay/smarthost configuration', with a note that it's a read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling PMG tools by being the only one focused on relay config.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config') and a version-specific note about the correct path. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, the specific purpose and prerequisite provide adequate context for selection.

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