Server Config

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by saying it 'Shows' configuration. It adds meaningful behavioral disclosure with 'Does not reveal auth tokens,' telling agents what sensitive data will not be exposed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the important privacy constraint is succinctly added in the second.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only configuration inspection tool, the description is complete: it states what is shown, implies read-only behavior, and explicitly discloses the auth-token exclusion. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource: 'LocalWorkspaceBridge server configuration.' It further specifies the exact contents (safety modes, limits, blocked paths), making it easy to distinguish from file/workspace manipulation siblings like write, edit, and inspect_workspace.

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 description clearly indicates this tool is for reading server configuration and safety-related settings, with zero parameters and no prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are mostly file/workspace operations, so the usage context is clear enough.

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