get_aux_config

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only restates the tool's purpose without disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., that it is a safe read operation, whether it requires a connection, or what the configuration encompasses). The description adds no value beyond the name.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal space.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but acceptable for a simple getter. However, it does not explain what 'AUX mode configuration' includes or the return format, which could hinder an AI agent's understanding.

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, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 states 'Get auxiliary channel (AUX) mode configuration,' which clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'auxiliary channel (AUX) mode configuration.' It is distinct from many sibling get_* tools as it focuses on AUX mode, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar getters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other get_* tools or set_aux_config. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for retrieving AUX mode configuration.

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