acs_get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait by stating that the password is masked (脱敏) and enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or mention whether any authentication is required, though the verb '获取' implies a safe read.

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 sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and clearly specifies the resource and key details. Every word contributes meaning, with no 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 zero-parameter configuration getter, the description provides a useful preview of the returned data, including the masked password. It lacks an output schema, but the description compensates reasonably. It could mention error cases or the response format, but these are not critical for such a 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 and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by outlining the output fields (host, port, username, acsBasePath, masked password), even though that relates to output rather than parameters.

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 retrieves the current ACS MCP Server connection configuration, listing specific fields (host/port/username/acsBasePath) and noting password masking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acs_get_parameters or acs_get_script that target different resources.

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 usage for viewing server connection settings but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with related sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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