get_kernel_settings

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals a safe read operation. The description merely repeats the resource ('kernel parameter settings') without adding behavioral details such as scope, sample output, or any special conditions. It adds no transparency beyond the annotation, except reinforcing that it is a getter.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase. It is front-loaded and not verbose. However, it is very sparse, providing only the bare resource name; while this is efficient, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and readOnlyHint is set, the description is adequate at a basic level. Yet 'kernel parameter settings' is vague and could be misinterpreted without further detail on what 'kernel' refers to in this router context. The output schema likely fills the gap, but the description itself leaves room for ambiguity.

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 schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rules, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no confusion.

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 '获取内核参数设置' (Get kernel parameter settings) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves kernel settings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other get_* sibling tools, but the subject is distinct enough to be understood.

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 state when this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer its purpose from the name alone.

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