config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by specifying that secrets (passwords, GraphQL API key, authorization header) are redacted, which is important for an agent to know when interpreting output. It does not describe auth requirements or output format, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of redundancy. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds the security-relevant detail about redaction. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description gives an agent everything needed: what is printed and the important caveat that secrets are redacted. No additional context is required to invoke it correctly or interpret the response safely.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 states a specific verb ("Prints") and resource ("configuration of the Sitecore MCP server") with no ambiguity. No sibling tool covers server configuration, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from all other tools in the list.

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 for diagnostics or when the current server configuration needs inspection, but the description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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