Get Alg Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it does not say whether the returned settings include enabled/disabled state per protocol or whether changes are made elsewhere; the protocol list is scope, not behavior.

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 short phrase with zero filler, and the resource plus covered protocols are front-loaded. It is efficient but extremely terse, which limits how much structure it can provide.

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 config getter with an output schema present and readOnlyHint set, the description covers what the agent needs in order to invoke it; return values and safety are handled by structured fields. Only a brief note on the ALG domain's relation to other protocol settings is missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameter-free, whole-configuration read rather than inviting a protocol argument.

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 (get) and resource (ALG settings), and the parenthetical enumerates the covered protocols (FTP/TFTP/SIP/H323), so an agent knows exactly which configuration domain is read. There is no competing ALG sibling in the list, so explicit differentiation is unnecessary, but the description does not relate itself to neighboring protocol/forwarding config tools.

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 when-to-use or prerequisite statement is given; usage is only implied by the 'get' prefix and the read-only nature of the tool. Because no sibling overlaps this ALG domain, the ambiguity is low, but the description does no routing work at all.

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