cfg_explain

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It likens the tool to kubectl explain, implying a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects.' Mentions version-rename history but lacks details on behavior like auth or rate limits.

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?

Efficiently structured: introduction, bulleted examples, parameter description. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does and how to specify the topic. No gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds essential meaning. Provides detailed examples of topic syntax (module overview, modparam, function, etc.), adding clarity beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states that the tool explains OpenSIPS directives, modules, functions, or pseudo-variables. Provides concrete examples that distinguish it from siblings like cfg_explain_route.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cfg_explain_route. The examples imply broad applicability but do not define exclusions or context.

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