get_remote_access_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds a detailed list of return fields with value meanings (0/1 states and default ports). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements or potential side effects (none expected for a read). With the annotation covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a one-line summary followed by a clearly structured list of return fields. Each field includes its meaning and possible values, making the description highly scannable without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and fully documents the return fields. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling configuration tools, a minor gap, but the description is otherwise complete for its simple scope.

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 no parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the field list it provides concerns the return value rather than parameters. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取' = get) and resource ('远程访问配置' = remote access configuration), further narrowing scope to SSH/Telnet/FTP/Web port statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like enable_ssh or set_web_ports.

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 implies it is used to retrieve current remote access configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling write tools (e.g., enable_ssh, set_web_ports). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context 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.