App Operation Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that settings are viewed. It does not disclose auth/session requirements, whether the host/port/scheme parameters establish a connection, or whether any state is affected. The read-only nature is only implied by '查看'.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity tips into under-specification for a tool with four parameters and a broad resource name.

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 all parameters are schema-documented. But for a settings-inspection tool surrounded by many similar app_config_* siblings, the description provides no scope, no connection expectations, and no routing guidance, leaving the agent unable to choose or invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%: host, port, scheme and profile all have Chinese descriptions in the schema, so the schema does the explanatory work. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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-plus-resource ('查看应用运营设置' = view app operation settings), which is better than a tautology, but '运营设置' is vague and the description offers no differentiation from the many sibling app_config_* tools (app_config_list, app_config_sys, app_config_detail). An agent cannot tell from this text alone which settings this returns.

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 mention of alternatives such as app_config_sys or app_config_list, and no conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for a specific subset of app settings.

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