Get core config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the default response is a truncated structural summary due to the config's large size, and section/raw override that behavior. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter semantics.

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?

Three sentences: default behavior, parameter option, and raw caveat. Front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately guides the agent to the best default call. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 read-only, optional-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the default behavior, the override options, and the rationale. An agent can call this correctly without further documentation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the section values including 'raw' and omission behavior. The description adds practical selection guidance (prefer summary over raw unless full JSON needed) and clarifies output scale, which enhances the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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 (Reads) and resource (Xray core configuration), and distinguishes the default structural summary from full raw output. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that target hosts, nodes, subscriptions, inbounds, or users.

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?

Explicitly advises when to omit the parameter vs pass a section, and explicitly cautions against using "raw" unless full JSON is truly needed. The schema description echoes this guidance, reinforcing the decision rule.

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