xbox_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Inspects' implies a read-only operation and the three named data areas tell the agent broadly what comes back, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, caching, or whether values are live or stored.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the core action leads it. Everything it says is relevant to calling the tool.

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, non-destructive getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers enough: it names the data categories the agent will receive. The lack of any return-shape hint keeps it from a 5, but no critical information for calling is absent.

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 zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to get wrong and the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object, consistent with the description.

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?

It uses a specific verb and names three concrete resources: saved configuration, console details, and authentication status. The name's get_ prefix and the presence of the sibling xbox_set_config make clear that this reads rather than writes, though the description itself does not state that contrast.

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?

It implies the use case for a diagnostic read by naming authentication status and config, but it never says when to call it rather than xbox_discover, xbox_ping, or xbox_set_config. It also gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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