wavexis_get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Side effects: None; queries the local filesystem only.' This provides transparency about side effects and scope, which is not captured in the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise with three short paragraphs. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage alternatives, and finally lists side effects and return format. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, sibling differentiation, side effects, and return type. An output schema exists (as per context signals), but the description still lists the expected keys in the return JSON, which is helpful. No gaps remain.

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 a single parameter 'input' of type object with no properties, effectively making the tool parameterless. The schema description coverage is 0% because the inner object has no description. However, the description does not discuss parameters, and since the tool takes no meaningful arguments, the omission is acceptable. The description could have explicitly stated 'takes no arguments' but the schema already conveys this. Score 4 for not adding value beyond the 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 returns wavexis-mcp server configuration and available browser backends. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool wavexis_backends by noting that this tool additionally exposes the server name for introspection, while wavexis_backends only returns the backend list. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use ``wavexis_backends`` instead when you only need the backend list', which tells the agent when to use an alternative. It also implies this tool is for full configuration introspection, giving clear context for when to invoke it.

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