hs4.admin.system.config.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation ('Read') but does not confirm safety, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent, stating only the basic action.

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 extremely concise at nine words, front-loading the core purpose. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and output. Still, it is well-formed and easy to parse.

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 lack of output schema and the single parameter, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It omits important context like the scope of 'system-level configuration state' and the effect of the boolean parameter. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the parameter 'includeStatusSummary' or its effect. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the parameter name and type. This is a significant gap.

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 action 'Read' and the resource 'system-level configuration state', with context 'through the admin namespace.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hs4.admin.system.config.set (write) and other admin operations.

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 mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for similar actions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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