generate_server_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 behavioral disclosure. It states what protocols and options are supported but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it creates files, returns configuration objects, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a configuration generation tool with 15 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words but could potentially benefit from slightly more structure given the tool's complexity. Every element earns its place by specifying protocols and options.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output is (e.g., configuration file content, JSON object), how to use the generated configuration, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with this many options and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more complete context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing supported protocols and transport/security options, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, dependencies, or usage patterns. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Generate Xray server configuration' with specific protocols listed (VLESS, VMess, Trojan, Shadowsocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_client_config by focusing on server-side configuration, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The verb 'generate' is specific, and the resource 'server configuration' is well-defined.

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, dependencies, or when to choose this over sibling tools like generate_client_config or validate_config. The context is implied (server setup), but no explicit usage instructions or exclusions are provided.

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