Tunables

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that a set is applied live only when the resource accepts it and that the server reports whether the change is pending a restart. This adds meaningful operational context and does not contradict the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the read/set mode, and includes the important restart-pending behavior without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers mode selection and set response behavior, but it leaves the read response format unclear and does not fully explain what 'every resource declared' means. Since there is no output schema, the description should do more to define what a successful read returns.

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 schema documents only the value parameter, and the description clarifies that providing a value triggers a set while omitting it triggers a read. However, the resource and key parameters are still semantically vague, with no explanation of valid key formats or how resource identifies the target.

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 identifies the action as reading live tunables or setting one via 'resource + key + value'. It distinguishes itself as a tunables-specific tool, though 'every resource declared' is somewhat awkward and the read output is not defined.

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 implies the main usage pattern: omit value to read, provide resource/key/value to set. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like open77_resources or open77_server_config_schema, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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