check_config

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

Description implies a read-only operation ('Show', 'highlight'), but annotations set destructiveHint=true. No disclosure of any destructive behavior contradicts the description, leading to a score of 1. Annotation contradiction flagged.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (main purpose, when to use, response format). Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with primary purpose.

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 no parameters and simple output, the description is complete in explaining purpose and response. Provides reference to config docs. However, the contradiction with annotations slightly degrades completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, so description adds meaning by explaining the response structure (current and defaults fields). Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate with the addition of response semantics.

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?

Description clearly states specific verb 'Show' and resource 'current LogMCP server configuration', with additional detail about highlighting default parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'server_status' and 'check_environment'.

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 'When to use' section explicitly describes scenarios (understanding accessible logs, proxy mode, etc.) and references configuration documentation. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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