Get startup config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states what is retrieved. It does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, mention permission requirements, describe return formatting, or clarify that the listed variables can be modified via server_set_variable.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It communicates the core purpose immediately and does not bury useful information under filler.

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?

The description gives a partial return summary ('startup command and configurable variables'), which helps because no output schema exists. However, for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, it leaves out important context such as permissions, panel resolution behavior, and what the configurable variables represent.

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 80%, with panel, baseUrl, clientKey, and applicationKey already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the required 'server' parameter, so it remains at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'server's startup command and configurable variables,' which clearly identifies it as a startup-config reader rather than a general server-info tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like server_get or server_set_variable, but the resource is specific enough for an agent to recognize.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as server_get, server_resources, or server_set_variable. The description only implies usage through its name and does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context.

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