App Config Auth Paths

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, yet the single sentence discloses nothing beyond the purpose. It does not confirm the operation is read-only, state any auth/permission requirement, or note whether host/port/profile affect which NAS instance is queried.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but for the conciseness dimension it is clean and appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents the five parameters. What is missing is the connective context an agent needs to route correctly: how this differs from the app_openapi auth-path siblings and any session/connection prerequisites.

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 100%, including a helpful note that app_name comes from app_list's appName field rather than the display name, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (应用的鉴权路径配置/app's auth path configuration), so an agent knows this reads auth path config for a given app. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as app_openapi_allow_auth_paths or app_openapi_add_auth_path, which also deal with auth paths.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the app be installed or login performed first), and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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