get_ads_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns 'public' configuration, implying it is safe and read-only, but does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the resource. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is optimal for a simple, no-parameter tool.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by specifying what constitutes the 'public configuration' (e.g., version, enabled features) or how it relates to the Ads SDK. The simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major gap, but some context is missing.

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 is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. Per guideline, baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this description meets that baseline without needing to explain parameter semantics.

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 action: 'Return the public configuration of the Codinfy Ads SDK for the calling site.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('public configuration'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_ad_units' or 'get_brand_settings' by focusing on Ads SDK configuration.

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 specify prerequisites, context, or situations where other tools like 'check_license_status' or 'get_brand_settings' would be more appropriate. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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