knowledge_config

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

Description mentions that keys are not exposed, which is a behavioral trait. However, no other traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits) are disclosed, and no annotations are provided to compensate.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence. Front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple config view. Could mention return format or authentication.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline score is 4. Description does not add parameter info as none exist. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 tool's purpose: to view LLM configuration information, with a specific note about not exposing keys. It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_learn and knowledge_search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_status. The context implies it's for viewing config, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion.

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