Show connection config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the token value is masked, which is a key behavioral detail. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, but the description implies a safe, non-destructive action. Additional details about what is not returned or any prerequisites would improve transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information. It is an example of efficient writing.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (connection settings with masked token). It does not explain the return format, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. Minor improvement could be mentioning the output is a JSON object, but not required.

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?

There are no parameters (0), so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not attempt to add any, which is appropriate. The schema coverage is 100% (empty), so no gap exists.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: 'Show the current Kong Admin API connection settings.' It lists the specific settings (admin URL, default workspace, whether a token is set) and uses a clear verb-resource structure. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kong_configure (modify config) or kong_get (retrieve entities).

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?

While there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, the tool's purpose is self-evident as a simple getter for connection configuration. Given the sibling tools, it is clear this is for viewing config, not for modifying or listing resources. The straightforward nature makes explicit guidelines less critical.

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