agileconfig_get_published_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return type (key-value list) and authentication method, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or rate limits. Basic behavior is covered, but more transparency is needed.

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 concise sentence covering purpose and return value without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with key information.

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 system complexity and sibling tools, the description provides essential context about authentication and return format. It misses explicit differentiation from closely related tools like get_all_configs, but the name and description imply the distinction.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters already have meaning. The description adds context by explaining the authentication method (App 认证) and purpose (client pull), reinforcing the parameters' roles in the workflow.

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 it gets all published configurations for a specific app using App authentication, suited for client pull. The verb 'get' and resource 'published configs' are specific, and the tool name distinguishes it from siblings like agileconfig_get_all_configs.

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 mentions '使用 App 认证方式，适合客户端拉取配置' (using App authentication, suitable for client pulling config), indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives or provide exclusions.

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