get_vrrp_config

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not describe the returned data structure, any side effects, or performance implications. Since annotations already cover safety, the description fails to provide additional contextual behavior such as whether the configuration is from the active or standby unit or if any restrictions apply.

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, concise phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read operation, and the key information is front-loaded.

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's low complexity (no parameters) and the availability of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it does. The readOnlyHint and schema provide additional context, so the minimal description meets the needs of this simple getter. However, it does not proactively mention related tools or configuration aspects, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters because there are none, and the schema already confirms 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 clearly specifies the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '双机热备 (VRRP) 配置' (dual-machine hot standby VRRP configuration), which is a specific and distinct resource among sibling tools. It adds semantic value by explaining the Chinese term and acronym, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, complementary tools, or scenarios for which this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. For a simple getter, some context about typical use cases or relationships to other network configuration tools would be helpful.

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