Get Configure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it restricts usage to HTTP mode and explains that the result differs based on obj_hash (server config vs. agent config). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 of dense, directly relevant information. It front-loads the HTTP-mode restriction and read-only nature, then explains the two behavior paths. No filler or redundant elaboration.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequately complete. It explains both invocation scenarios and points to the correct sibling tool for a prerequisite. It does not describe the returned config structure, but for a read-only configuration tool that is not a significant gap; the schema and mode explanation suffice.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description. The tool description further adds meaning by describing the behavioral consequence of providing or omitting obj_hash, which goes beyond the schema's literal definition and helps the agent anticipate results.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('server or agent configuration'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly directing users to get_system_overview for finding agent hashes, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool (to read configuration) and the two modes based on obj_hash. It provides an explicit pointer to get_system_overview for a prerequisite action, though it does not list explicit exclusions or alternative tools for non-configuration reads.

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