nacos_get_app_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the result includes own config plus shared configs, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, authorization needs, or rate limits. The read nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 sentences long, every word serves a purpose. First sentence defines the tool, second gives a preference recommendation. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or structure. It covers the config composition well but omits details about error cases, the role of the group parameter, and the exact interpretation of 'effective configuration'. The sibling list provides context but the description itself is not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% (group parameter lacks description). The description adds meaning by linking 'app' to the file extension pattern (<app>.<file-extension>) and mentions 'env' implicitly via shared configs. This compensates partly for the missing group description, but group remains unexplained.

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 it reads the effective configuration of an app, including its own config and shared/extension configs. It distinguishes itself from sibling nacos_get_config by specifying preference. This meets the highest standard for purpose clarity.

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?

Explicitly recommends preferring this tool over nacos_get_config when asked about an app's settings. This provides clear guidance for tool selection, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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