get_server_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves side effects. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a zero-param tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what 'server configuration' includes or the return format. Given the sibling tools suggest a code/development context, more specificity would help, but it meets basic requirements.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools as per rules.

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 'Get current server configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current server configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_project_info' or 'get_repository_info', but the resource specificity is adequate.

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 like 'get_project_info' or 'get_repository_info'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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