makemkv_get_config

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the output format ('as YAML'), which is not covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true aligns with 'Get'), and while it could mention more about behavior like response structure or errors, it provides useful context for a read operation.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information ('Get current server configuration as YAML'). It's efficiently structured and easy to parse, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity (one parameter with no properties, read-only operation, and an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the output format, which complements the output schema, though it could briefly mention the tool's role relative to 'makemkv_set_config' for better context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter ('input') that has no properties, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose, and since there are effectively zero meaningful parameters, it compensates well by clarifying the output format, earning a high baseline score.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current server configuration') with a specific format ('as YAML'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'makemkv_set_config' beyond the obvious get/set distinction, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 like 'makemkv_set_config' for configuration management, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for retrieving configuration. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.

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