get_current_config

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description does disclose the input sections and that the return is JSON, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, authorization requirements, or other execution-relevant details. It is adequate for a simple getter but leaves room for greater transparency.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes information about usage or behavior, with no filler or 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?

For a low-complexity config getter with a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the necessary invocation details. It could be more explicit about side-effect safety or how this tool relates to get_system_status, but overall it provides sufficient context for the defined scope.

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 only contains a string property 'section' with a default of 'all'. The description enriches this by documenting all accepted values (all, crawler, push, keywords, weights), which is essential for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 retrieves the current system configuration and enumerates the available configuration sections (all, crawler, push, keywords, weights). This adds resource-level specificity beyond the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_system_status.

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?

Usage is implicitly clear: call this tool to get configuration data by section. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools such as get_system_status or get_storage_status.

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