get_ap_group_config

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

The description simply repeats the read-only nature implied by the get verb and the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the configuration contains or under what conditions it might be unavailable.

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, front-loaded phrase that uses minimal words to convey the tool's purpose. No extraneous content exists.

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 no-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the exact resource and operation, though it could benefit from clarifying what an 'AP group' is, but the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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?

With zero parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The input schema is empty, and the description doesn't add or need parameter details; score reflects the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 '获取 AP 分组配置' translates to 'Get AP group configuration,' clearly stating the specific verb (get) and resource (AP group config). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other sibling tool targets AP group configuration.

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?

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. However, the verb 'get' and the resource name imply the tool is used to fetch the current AP group configuration, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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