get_current_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns configuration in JSON format and lists valid parameter values. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation, has no side effects, or how it handles invalid section values. For a simple getter, the description is adequate but not comprehensive; it stops short of explicitly stating safety and error behavior.

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, with a one-line purpose statement followed by structured argument and return sections. The parameter list is formatted as clear bullets. It is efficiently written without unnecessary fluff, though it slightly under-elaborates on return details. Still, it earns high marks for front-loading the purpose and organizing details logically.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter), and an output schema exists, so per rubric the description need not explain return values in depth. The description fully documents the parameter's allowed values and default, and states the output format. There are no prerequisites, authentication notes, or complex behaviors to disclose. For this complexity level, the description is complete.

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 defines 'section' as a string with no description or enum values, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by enumerating all accepted values ('all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', 'weights') and explaining the default ('all'). This is critical semantic information that the schema entirely lacks, making the description indispensable for correct invocation.

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 title 'get_current_config' along with the description '获取当前系统配置' (Get current system configuration) clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_system_status' or 'get_storage_status' by focusing on configuration, and the description provides a list of configurable sections (all, crawler, push, keywords, weights), making its scope unambiguous.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool (e.g., get_system_status for status) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage based solely on the name and parameter list.

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