get_alg_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds the specific protocol coverage, but doesn't disclose return format, limitations, or other behavioral traits. It is consistent with the annotation and adds minimal value beyond it.

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, concise sentence, front-loading the verb '获取' (get) and adding a parenthetical clarification. No wasted words; ideal for a simple getter.

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 zero-parameter input, the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its context. No additional elaboration on outputs or prerequisites is necessary.

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 in the schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description is not required to compensate for schema gaps. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 retrieves ALG settings and specifies the protocol scope (FTP/TFTP/SIP/H323), using a specific verb+resource+scope structure. This distinguishes it from other getter tools in the sibling list, which target different network functions.

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 usage context or alternatives are provided. The description is definitional only; it doesn't state when to use this tool versus other configuration tools. Usage is implied by the getter nature, but there is no clear guidance.

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