Get Naming Config

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. 'Return naming configuration' implies a read operation but offers no details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or result pagination. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is concise but overly brief. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices meaningful content. Every word earns its place, but not enough information is conveyed.

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?

Tool has many parameters and no output schema, yet description lacks sufficient detail to enable correct invocation. Agent cannot determine required inputs or expected output format from this description alone.

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 0%, and description adds zero parameter information. With 11 parameters, including enums and complex fields like 'cursor' and 'fields', the agent has no guidance on how to use them correctly.

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?

Description states 'Return naming configuration' which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quality_profiles' or 'get_app_config', leaving the agent uncertain about what a naming configuration entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_media_management_config'). No exclusions or context provided, forcing the agent to rely solely on the name.

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