get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns real-time vs. cached data. The description is minimal and lacks depth beyond the basic action, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 that front-loads the key action ('Show current server configuration') and specifies what's included. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral details, or integration with siblings. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it could benefit from more completeness regarding when and why to use it.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing inputs. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose with the verb 'Show' and specifies the resource as 'current server configuration', including what it contains ('active backend and output directory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_models or task_status by focusing on server settings rather than models or tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it's clear but not exhaustive in sibling comparison).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for debugging, setup verification, or general monitoring, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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