check_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it reports configuration state, tests the server connection, and promises not to reveal secrets. It does not mention error behavior or auth requirements, but those are minor for a simple read-only diagnostic tool.

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?

Exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function and followed by a practical usage note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it checks, when to use it, and a security guarantee. It could add an explicit 'when not to use', but that is not essential for this simple diagnostic.

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 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies; the absence of parameter discussion is not a gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it shows the configuration state and tests the connection to the uazapi server. This clearly distinguishes check_config from the chat/media/instance sibling tools, which all focus on data operations rather than configuration diagnostics.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use quando as outras tools falharem' (use when the other tools fail), which tells an agent when to reach for this tool. It does not list specific alternative tools by name, but the fallback diagnostic context is clear enough.

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