Ver la configuracion del servidor

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the read-only nature, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: 'Las claves aparecen enmascaradas' (keys appear masked) discloses a specific behavioral trait—that secrets are not shown in plaintext. This is useful for an agent to set expectations about the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences, with the main action first ('Muestra la configuracion actual') and a key detail second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, basic read operation), the description provides sufficient context: it names what is shown and the masking behavior. However, it does not describe the structure or format of the configuration returned, which could be helpful but is not critical for a config viewer. The presence of readOnlyHint annotation compensates for some missing 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to add semantically. Per the rubric, 0 params defaults to a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist.

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 function with a specific verb ('Muestra' = shows) and resource ('la configuracion actual' = current configuration). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on specific data entities like companies, functions, or financial records, making this the obvious tool for viewing server configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is self-evident (view config), but there is no explicit statement of context, such as 'use this to inspect current settings before making changes.' This is similar to the MID example (update_drive) which scored 2 for lacking usage guidance.

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