get_iptv_config

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

The description only restates the tool's function and adds no behavioral details beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It doesn't mention return format, potential errors, or any other operational characteristics, offering zero extra transparency.

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 short phrase with no filler words or unnecessary information. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 simple parameterless getter with an output schema present, the description is adequate. It identifies the resource clearly, and the output schema covers return values. However, it could mention what '透传配置' includes or whether any special states exist, but given the low complexity, this is minor.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and no additional meaning is required. The schema confirms no parameters exist, and the description aligns with this.

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 IPTV 透传配置' (get IPTV passthrough configuration) clearly states the action (get) and the resource (IPTV passthrough config). It is more specific than the tool name alone by adding '透传' (passthrough), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* config tools in the sibling list, so it's not a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ipv6_config or get_dns_config. It provides no context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to select this tool.

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