Get core config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations don't: the full config can be tens of KB, the default is a summarized projection, and raw output is opt-in. No mention of auth scope or error behavior, but nothing contradicts the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the default behavior, followed by the parameter modes. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the mode selection and payload-size tradeoff an agent needs to call it correctly. What remains unsaid — permission requirements, sibling overlap — is minor for a read-only config getter.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by repeating and enriching the semantics of `section` with a concrete example ("inbounds") and the special sentinel value "raw", plus the preference ordering (summary > raw unless the full JSON is needed).

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 and resource ("Reads the Xray core configuration") and immediately clarifies the default return shape (structural summary with tags, ports, protocols, routing rule count). That detail distinguishes it from siblings like marzban_system_get_inbounds or marzban_system_get_stats without needing the schema.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance for the single parameter: omit for summary, pass a key name for one section's raw JSON, pass "raw" for everything, and explicitly prefers summary over raw. It does not compare against sibling tools that also expose inbound/config data, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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