get_system_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get') without mentioning whether this requires permissions, what format the configuration is returned in, or if it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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 in Russian that directly states the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'system configuration' entails, the return format, or any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors). For a tool in a context with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 'Получить системную конфигурацию' (Get system configuration) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('system configuration'), but it's vague about what specific configuration is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_app_info' or 'get_plugin_info', which might also retrieve configuration data.

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. With siblings like 'get_app_info' and 'get_plugin_info' that might retrieve related configuration data, the description offers no context about scope (e.g., system-wide vs. app-specific) or prerequisites for usage.

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