get_ui_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and naming the config contents is helpful. Yet it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, whether authentication is needed, or what the full response shape is.

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?

A single sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds semantic 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?

For a simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description conveys the essential information: the resource and the specific settings it returns. It could be slightly more complete by stating that it returns all UI settings, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 takes no parameters, so there is little for the description to add. The parenthetical describing the UI config fields provides meaningful context beyond the empty input schema, earning the baseline score for a zero-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('UI configuration'), and clarifies the relevant fields ('date format, first day of week'). This distinguishes it clearly from the many other configuration getters among the sibling tools, such as get_naming_config or get_host_config.

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 when to use the tool: when UI-related settings like date format or first day of week are needed. However, it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions, and among several similar get_*_config sibling tools, the selection relies mostly on the tool name.

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