get_config_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose some behavioral traits, such as returning 'masked' configuration and 'testing' API connectivity. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if the connectivity test has side effects (e.g., network calls), leaving some ambiguity.

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, direct sentence that conveys both functions—returning masked configuration and testing connectivity—without any extraneous words or redundant details.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose, though it could elaborate on what the connectivity test entails or what 'masked' implies, but such details are not essential for a minimal viable tool.

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 the schema is empty. According to the rubric, the baseline for tools with no parameters is 4, and there is no additional parameter information needed since none exist.

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: 'Return masked configuration and test Grok API connectivity.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and by mentioning configuration and Grok API, it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_fetch and get_sources, which are unrelated.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where it would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer its use case solely from the name and purpose.

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