erpnext_config_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool works without contacting ERPNext and reports that legacy allowlists are inactive. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the legacy allowlist note adds useful context without bloating the description.

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 zero-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is inspected and that no network contact occurs. Minor ambiguity around what 'resolved target' refers to prevents a 5, but nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the described inspect-only behavior.

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 action ('Inspect') and the specific resources ('resolved target and safe_mode') without contacting ERPNext. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this as a local configuration inspection tool rather than an API call, though 'resolved target' is somewhat jargon-dependent.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting local configuration state without network access, and notes that legacy allowlists are inactive. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like erpnext_health_check or erpnext_plan_inspect, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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