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 full burden. It states the return format (JSON) and available sections, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor mention any potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid input. The 'get' verb implies safety, but a few words about non-mutating behavior would improve 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 concise and well-structured, with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every line adds value: the purpose statement, the parameter values, and the return type. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the parameter's allowed values and the return type, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already defined elsewhere, so no further detail is needed.

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 provides a type and default for the 'section' parameter, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by listing all valid values ('all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', 'weights') and their meanings, along with the default. This gives the agent complete information to select the parameter correctly.

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: '获取当前系统配置' (get current system configuration). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('current config'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_system_status and get_storage_status. The listed sections further clarify the scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., get_system_status). Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the section list, which is not sufficient for an agent to make context-aware decisions.

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