read_config

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses redaction of secrets, but lacks details on error handling, potential side effects (e.g., banner files), or authentication requirements beyond SSH key. Could be more comprehensive.

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 a front-loaded action statement followed by an Args list. Every sentence is relevant, though slightly verbose. Could be tighter.

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 complexity (5 required params, no output schema or annotations), the description lacks information on output format, what happens on missing files, and redaction specifics. For an agent, gaps remain in understanding the result structure.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section in the description provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters. Each parameter's role is defined (e.g., server_ip as hostname/IP, ssh_key as private key path), though format constraints are omitted.

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 it reads specific config files (server.xml, jvm.options, etc.) with redaction. The verb 'read' and resource 'config' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_check and list_logs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied by the description, but no when-not or alternative references are provided.

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