get_serve_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels. It discloses that it never queries the server, sources data from /proc/<pid>/cmdline with fallback to the exec script, and redacts sensitive values (token/key/secret/password/credential). This provides the agent with a complete safety and operational profile.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes purpose, the second explains the data source and fallback, the third explains redaction. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant phrases.

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?

The description is complete for a parameter-less tool with an output schema. It covers the source of truth, fallback logic, API interaction avoidance, and security redaction. Given no annotations and no params, there are no critical gaps in the agent's ability to invoke and interpret results.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools is appropriate. The description's detailed behavior adds context beyond the empty schema.

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's purpose: read-only introspection of vLLM launch flags. It names the specific resource (vLLM launch flags) and action (introspection), and the use of 'read-only' distinguishes it from mutation tools. Among siblings like check_health or list_models, this is uniquely about configuration, so purpose is 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 explains when the tool prefers live process data over static fallback, which implies it should be used to get launch flags regardless of process state. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it. There is no direct alternative mentioned, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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