postfix_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: only non-default settings are returned (postconf -n semantics) and secret-looking values are redacted, which matters for interpreting results. It does not mention rate limits or caching, which is minor for a local read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: source of truth first, then the included categories in a compact parenthetical, then the redaction caveat. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

With zero inputs and an output schema present, the description needn't document return structure. It covers source, scope, categories, and the redaction caveat, leaving only usage routing unaddressed; the definition is essentially complete for a parameterless read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (Postfix settings from postconf -n) and scopes it precisely to non-default, delivery-relevant settings, enumerating the categories (relayhost, TLS, SASL, limits, queue lifetimes, domains, milters). This is clearly distinguishable from the diagnostic and queue-focused siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this over postfix_doctor or the queue/log tools, and no prerequisites stated. The scope phrase 'delivery-relevant' hints at a use case but the agent must infer all routing decisions itself.

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