get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or response format. For a tool that likely returns system-level data, more context on what 'configuration information' entails and any access restrictions would be helpful.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples ('守护进程状态、订阅数等'). It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what information is retrieved but lacks details on the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a simple read-only tool with zero inputs, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in understanding the full context of use.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. It implicitly confirms no inputs are required by not mentioning any.

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 purpose: '获取 tt-rss 服务器配置信息 (守护进程状态、订阅数等)' translates to 'Get tt-rss server configuration information (daemon status, subscription count, etc.)'. This specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('tt-rss server configuration information') with examples of what information is included. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_feeds' or 'get_categories', but the resource type is distinct enough to imply differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or context for usage. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for monitoring, troubleshooting, or general information retrieval, nor does it contrast with other 'get_' tools that retrieve specific data subsets.

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