get_current_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves current configuration and returns JSON, which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is acceptable minimal disclosure.

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: a one-line purpose, a clear Args block with allowed values, and a Returns block. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

The description covers the single optional parameter, every valid value, the default, and the return type. An output schema is present, so return details are not the description's burden. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit read-only/safety statement, but the operation is clearly a getter.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by defining 'section' and enumerating all accepted values, including the default 'all'. This adds all semantic meaning an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the current system configuration and enumerates the config sections available. It is distinguishable from sibling status/news tools by the explicit 'config' resource, though it does not directly contrast with any sibling.

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 lists valid section values and the default, so an agent understands what it can fetch. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_status or get_storage_status; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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