nacos_get_config

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description mentions the return format options (Markdown or JSON), which adds some value, but doesn't describe error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when configurations don't exist. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 reasonably concise but has structural issues. The first two sentences are somewhat redundant. The parameter and return sections are clearly labeled but could be more efficiently integrated. While not verbose, it could be more front-loaded with critical 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 moderate complexity (retrieving configurations with multiple parameters), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling information, and behavioral details that would help an agent use it effectively in various scenarios.

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, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all 4 parameters (data_id, group_name, namespace_id, response_format) with brief explanations and defaults, which compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't provide examples or detailed constraints beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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: '获取 Nacos 配置内容' (Get Nacos configuration content) and '从 Nacos 配置中心获取指定的配置内容' (Get specified configuration content from Nacos configuration center). It uses specific verbs ('获取' - get/retrieve) and identifies the resource (Nacos configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'nacos_publish_config' beyond the obvious get vs. publish distinction.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'nacos_publish_config' or any other alternatives. There's no information about prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other configuration retrieval methods, or any usage constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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