Get Server Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot express: no Canvas API calls are made, it functions before authentication, and the token is reported only as present/absent without being revealed. Those are exactly the safety and pre-condition details an agent needs before calling.

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 dense sentence with zero filler: what it returns first, then the security caveat, then the read-only/no-API-call guarantees, then the recommended usage. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields returned and clarifying token handling. For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free diagnostics tool there is nothing material left for an agent to guess.

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 and the baseline is 4. The enumerated settings list also doubles as an informal description of the return payload.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Show this server's settings") and enumerates exactly which settings (school URL, profile, write mode, cache, time zone, download folder), plus the token-presence check. "This server's" implicitly scopes it to local configuration rather than Canvas API data, which separates it from siblings like whoami, get_my_settings, and check_token_expiry.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger: "works before a token is set, so use it first to diagnose setup problems" — a clear first-step/pre-auth condition an agent can act on. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g., check_token_expiry for expiry vs. this tool for presence), so it doesn't reach a 5.

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