get_current_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns JSON-formatted configuration information, which is helpful, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's cached or real-time data, or any rate limits. For a configuration retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points effectively for the enum values. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool with multiple options. The only minor improvement would be integrating the default value more seamlessly rather than listing it separately, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter with multiple options), the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), and the excellent parameter documentation in the description, this is quite complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide, but the description covers the core functionality adequately for a read 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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly documents the single parameter 'section' with its default value ('all'), enumerates all possible values with their meanings, and explains what each option retrieves. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds substantial value beyond the basic input schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '获取当前系统配置' (get current system configuration), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_system_status' by focusing specifically on configuration retrieval rather than general system status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions different configuration sections, it doesn't explain when to retrieve specific sections versus 'all', nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_system_status' that might overlap in functionality. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or use case scenarios.

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