db_server_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is read-only, what it returns, whether it can fail, or whether it reflects live or saved settings. Identifying the resource without describing behavior is insufficient.

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 a single short declarative sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the core subject.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description still leaves the operation ambiguous and does not differentiate it from db_server_config_update or db_server_config_test. An agent could reasonably call it and be uncertain whether it returns current settings, default settings, or performs some action.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for parameterless tools applies.

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 names a specific resource ('SQL server connection settings') and adds context ('used by the panel'), but it lacks an operational verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'. The tool's purpose as a read operation is only implied by its name and the presence of sibling update/test tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention db_server_config_update for modifications or db_server_config_test for connectivity testing, leaving the agent to infer the correct context from sibling names alone.

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