Get Iptv Config

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds nothing further — no note on what the passthrough config covers, whether it depends on other settings, or any side conditions. A read-only getter needs little, but this contributes zero beyond the annotation.

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 no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter read-only getter is inherently simple. Still, the description leaves the scope of 'IPTV passthrough config' unelaborated, which is the minimum viable level for a tool 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 takes no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not misrepresent any.

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 (获取/get) and resource (IPTV 透传配置/IPTV passthrough config), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not differentiate itself from the many other get_*_config siblings beyond the resource name, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous sibling get_*_config tools. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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