read_server_cfg

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Read' clearly indicates a non-destructive operation, but no additional behavior is disclosed, such as whether raw file contents are returned, file path expectations, or error behavior. It is minimally transparent but not richly so.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool, this description is mostly complete. It identifies the exact file to read and implies the return of its contents. A more explicit statement about the return format or file location would be marginally helpful, but is not essential for such a simple operation.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled; the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the SAMP server.cfg configuration file'). This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like write_server_cfg and update_server_cfg, and from read_server_log which targets a different file.

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?

The context of reading a configuration file is clear, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as read_server_log or the write/update config tools. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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