d365fo_get_server_config

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

With no annotations, the description must explicitly state side effects. It describes the operation as getting configuration, implying a read-only action, but does not confirm it is safe or non-destructive. No behavioral traits beyond the core function are disclosed.

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 extremely concise at 10 words, which is efficient but lacks essential context. It front-loads the purpose but does not earn its brevity due to missing behavioral details and usage guidance.

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, no annotations, and a simple parameter set, the description fails to explain what the returned dictionary contains or what 'feature status' entails. It is incomplete for an agent to infer output structure or error conditions.

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 input schema fully covers the parameter space (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable as there are none. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 retrieves server configuration and feature status, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_environment_info or get_server_performance, which may also query server-related settings.

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 over alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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