get_intranet_penetration_config

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (read operation), so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—no information about what the configuration contains, return format, or caveats. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 phrase, front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter with no unnecessary 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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any contextual information about what '内网穿透配置' includes, when this tool is relevant, or how the output is structured, leaving some ambiguity for an agent operating in a large sibling set.

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, and the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to elaborate on, so the baseline of 4 for zero parameters 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 '获取内网穿透配置' clearly specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'intranet penetration configuration', which aligns with the tool name. However, it doesn't add extra scope or explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling get_*_config tools, so it's clear but not strongly differentiated.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, any prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the 'get' verb, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and similar config getters.

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