Command Flags

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 properly implies this is a read-only, non-mutating operation with a side-effect-free GET. However, it doesn't disclose what the payload looks like at all—flags could be returned as a flat list of strings, key-value pairs, or a structured object—and there's no mention of potential variability based on server configuration. A bit more context (e.g., 'includes paths, server URL, and launch-time options') would help.

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 brief and front-loaded with the key action word 'Get.' However, given the availability of sibling tools and the lack of other documentation, a single clarifying phrase about use cases (e.g., 'Use for debugging or checking launch configuration') would add value without bloat.

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, read-only informational endpoint, the description is arguably complete. Yet the lack of details about output format or returned data structure is a gap given there's no output schema to backfill it. The description is also not explicit about whether this returns all server options or just those passed via command-line flags (which may be ambiguous for the agent).

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description is not expected to explain parameters that don't exist. However, since no output schema is provided, the agent receives no hints about what the returned flags' structure might be. Score of 4 reflects that zero-parameter means the baseline is high, but some pointer to output structure would make it a 5.

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 gets all command-line flags the server was started with, using a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('command-line flags'). The description is distinct from sibling tools like sdnext_get_options and sdnext_status by virtue of being a system-level configuration report, and the endpoint path is included for reference.

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 explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is provided. However, the endpoint is so simple and domain-specific that the intended usage is largely self-evident. A score of 3 reflects that the description is minimal on contextual guidance but not misleading for a zero-parameter, read-only endpoint.

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