App Config Detail

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. '查看' implies a read-only operation, which is some signal, but there is no disclosure of auth/permission requirements, whether it targets a running app, or any rate/side-effect behavior.

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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter tool.

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 explained. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero annotations, the description does not compensate for the missing safety/permission context, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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%, so all five parameters (including the nuanced app_name-vs-name distinction) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('查看...配置项详情' – view config item details) scoped to '指定应用' (a specified app). This distinguishes it reasonably from the list/config-family siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with app_config_list or app_config_sys.

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 indication of when to use this versus app_config_list, app_config_sys, or app_config_auth_paths, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the app must be installed or that app_name comes from app_list). Usage must be entirely inferred.

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