get_current_config

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read operation through the verb '获取' and states the return format, but it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. It also omits any mention of authentication, permissions, or potential sensitivity of the configuration data. This is a minor gap for a getter but still a gap given no annotations exist.

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 well-organized with Args and Returns sections, and it front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the explicit 'Returns' line, but the structure is clear and every element adds value. The section list is necessary for parameter semantics, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 configuration getter with an output schema, the description covers the core information: what it does, the parameter options, and the return type. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral safety confirmation, which are moderately important for an agent to invoke it correctly without assumptions. It is adequate but has clear gaps, so it meets the minimum viable standard but does not excel.

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?

While the input schema only defines 'section' as a string with default 'all', the description enriches this substantially by listing all valid enum values ('all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', 'weights') and explaining their meaning. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type/default and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the tool's function: '获取当前系统配置' (get current system configuration), which is a specific verb+resource pair. It enumerates distinct config sections (crawler, push, keywords, weights) and the default 'all', making its scope unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_system_status or get_storage_status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where one might prefer get_system_status or other configuration-related tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The section list implies use cases but does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to view current config values'.

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