get_configuration

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (workspace path, ROS distribution, server settings) but does not mention any behavioral traits like side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Since it is a read operation, the lack of harm is implicit, but not explicit.

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?

The description is short (two sentences plus a bullet list), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns without needing to repeat the output schema. The tool is simple and the description fully captures its purpose and output.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing the key returned fields, which helps an agent understand the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4, achieved here.

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 clearly states 'Get current MCP server configuration' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned parameters, distinguishing it from other getter tools in the sibling set (e.g., get_system_status, get_vehicle_state).

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?

The context is clear: use when you need the server configuration. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed because this tool has a unique purpose. The description implies usage without ambiguity.

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