App Config Wizard

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 reveals only that the output is a wizard/form definition; it says nothing about whether this is a read-only fetch, whether authentication or a live session profile is required, or any side effects — significant gaps for a tool with connection-oriented parameters (host/port/scheme/profile).

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 with the resource and clarifying parenthetical front-loaded; nothing is padded or wasted. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally 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-value explanation is not required, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description does not fully support correct invocation of a five-parameter, connection-aware tool.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including the app_name lookup convention. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level, giving the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('获取应用配置向导数据') and clarifies the payload as an installation wizard form definition. This is more specific than a bare restatement, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like app_config_detail or app_config_list that also retrieve app configuration.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many app_config_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no conditions for invocation. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and the app_name requirement.

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