get_upnpigd_config

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists error codes ('disabled', 'noent'), which is helpful but insufficient. It does not mention that the tool is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it describe response size or latency. The minimal transparency leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus error codes. Every word serves a purpose. It front-loads the action and resource, and the error codes are directly relevant. No wasted text.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is adequate. It identifies the action and resource, and error codes. However, it could briefly note that the output provides configuration details. The completeness is high for the complexity level.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema already documents all required info. The description adds no param information, which is acceptable since there is nothing to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate due to 100% coverage and no parameters.

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 the UPnPIGDConfig', indicating a read operation on a specific resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'put_upnpigd_config' (update). However, it does not define what UPnPIGDConfig is, relying on the tool name's self-descriptiveness.

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. The description only provides error codes, but no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations to avoid. The error codes hint at failure modes but lack actionable direction.

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