Get Udp Proxy Config

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's burden is light. It adds domain context (UDPXY = multicast-to-HTTP proxy) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about whether configuration may be absent, default, or returned in a nested form.

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 sentence with the identifying term front-loaded and the clarifying gloss trailing it. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs in order to select and call it. The only shortfall is that it offers no routing versus the related multicast/proxy config getters.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The parenthetical gloss supplies the only semantic content the schema cannot carry.

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+resource ('获取 UDPXY 配置') and adds a useful gloss clarifying the domain ('组播转 HTTP'), so an agent unfamiliar with UDPXY knows what it covers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as get_igmp_proxy_config or get_iptv_config, which also concern multicast/IP-proxy settings.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative sibling tools an agent might pick instead when looking for multicast or IPTV configuration. The agent must infer the retrieval context entirely.

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