yapi_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does earn credit for disclosing that secret values are excluded from the response, a real trait not derivable from the empty schema, but it says nothing about what happens when no configuration exists, whether defaults are merged in, or what the effective settings include.

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 with no filler. Every qualifier ("non-secret", "currently in effect") carries meaning.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly stays brief. The remaining gap is state-related context, such as whether unconfigured or default values appear, which an agent would want before deciding to call it.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

"Show non-secret connection settings currently in effect" gives a specific verb (Show) and a specific resource (connection settings), with the scope qualifiers "non-secret" and "currently in effect" narrowing it. It is clearly a read of the effective config rather than a mutation, but it never names the sibling yapi_configure as the counterpart, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: "currently in effect" suggests inspecting live state rather than stored settings, which hints at when to reach for this over yapi_configure. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no statement that this is the diagnostic step before/after configuring.

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