Get MantisBT Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that multiple options can be fetched at once and what kinds of options exist, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown option names, or return shape.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, followed by a scannable list of example values. Every line earns its place; the list is slightly long but each entry carries distinct information.

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?

For a simple annotated read tool this is largely adequate, but with no output schema the description leaves the returned structure unexplained (e.g. whether values come back as a name-to-value map or raw strings). That gap is minor but real.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating concrete valid option names, which is genuinely valuable because the schema declares no enum and would otherwise leave the agent guessing at legal values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one or more MantisBT configuration options.' An agent can tell this apart from issue-oriented siblings at a glance. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby metadata siblings like get_issue_enums or get_metadata, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated option names, giving the agent a sense of what this tool is good for. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_issue_enums, get_metadata, or get_mantis_version, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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