mcp_qwen_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns configuration data, including specific fields, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects or failure modes, but for a config getter the 'returns' verb and field listing provide sufficient behavioral clarity.

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, efficient sentence that states the action and the exact return fields. No filler, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded in the verb and resource.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned values (mode, debug port, connection status), giving an agent a clear idea of what it will receive. It could mention that the output is a structured object or describe the status representation, but that is minor for this simple tool.

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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with the resource 'current Qwen connection configuration' and lists the exact fields (mode, debug port, connection status). This clearly distinguishes it from the task-oriented siblings and from the complementary set_config tool.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving current configuration, so usage is apparent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus mcp_qwen_set_config or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Guidance is implied by the verb and resource rather than stated.

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