App Config Sys

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 查看 implies a read-only call, but nothing is said about authentication/session requirements (the profile param hints at session scoping), whether the returned config includes secrets, or what happens when host/port are omitted and defaults are resolved.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than deliberate density.

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-value explanation is not required, and all four optional connection parameters are documented. Still, the description leaves unclear what specific configuration is retrieved and how it differs from the sibling config-read tools, which matters given the crowded app_config_* namespace.

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%, with host, port, scheme, and profile all documented in the schema itself (including example ports and protocol options). The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented schemas 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 gives a verb (查看) and a resource (应用中心系统配置), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this from closely named siblings such as app_config_list, app_config_detail, or app_config_set_sys, leaving the reader unsure what 'system config' covers versus generic app config.

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 app_config_list, app_config_detail, or the other app_config_* siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to the mutation counterpart app_config_set_sys are provided.

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