agileconfig_get_all_configs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the admin authentication requirement and the inclusion of unpublished items, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or response handling, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each adding essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and critical restriction.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately covers the core functionality, auth requirement, and parameter scope. It could be more complete by hinting at the structure of returned configs or pagination, but for a tool with only two parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds limited extra meaning. It mentions 'all environments' for the env parameter implicitly but does not provide additional syntax or constraints beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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The description clearly states the tool retrieves all configurations for an application, including unpublished items. It uses specific verbs ('获取') and resource ('所有配置'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_config and get_published_configs by mentioning the inclusion of unpublished items and admin requirement.

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 explicitly states it requires admin authentication and is for viewing editing configs, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid it, though the sibling tools like 'get_published_configs' imply differentiation.

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