get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does add one genuinely useful fact: credentials are redacted, which tells the agent this read is safe to surface. It does not state read-only/non-mutating status, whether the output reflects live state, or any permission requirements beyond the redaction note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding: verb, resource, endpoint, and the most decision-relevant caveat (redaction) all land immediately.

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 zero-argument read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level and flags the redaction behavior, so return-value details can be left to the schema. It stops short of stating when this config view is preferable to get_server_info.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not mislead. No per-parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('the go2rtc YAML configuration') and even anchors it to the concrete endpoint `GET /api/config`. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest one, get_server_info.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_server_info. The only hint of context is the endpoint path, which implies read access but does not help an agent choose between this and its siblings.

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