App Config List

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. It only says it lists app config items and gives no information about read-only safety, authentication requirements, or side effects. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though brevity comes at the cost of not addressing sibling differentiation.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters have schema descriptions. However, in a large sibling set including app_config_detail, app_config_sys, and app_config_set, the description does not fully clarify when this list tool should be chosen over those alternatives.

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 the four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 (列出) and resource (应用的配置项) with scope (所有应用). Clear at a basic level, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as app_config_detail, app_config_sys, or app_config_set.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like app_config_detail or app_config_sys, and no prerequisites or context are provided. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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