config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but does not explain side effects, whether operations are destructive, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'relay_reset' and 'warmup' are mentioned without any behavioral context.

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 sentence with a list, which is concise but cryptic. The formatting (parentheses, pipes) is dense and may be hard to parse. Every sentence earns its place, but better structure could improve readability.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the overall purpose of the tool beyond listing actions, and parameter semantics are missing. Given the complexity (3 params, multiple actions), a more detailed description is needed for complete understanding.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It partially adds value by enumerating valid action values (e.g., open_relay, status). However, 'key' and 'value' parameters are not described at all, leaving their purpose unclear. This is partial improvement over raw schema.

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 states it handles 'Server config + credential setup' and lists actions in two categories (relay and runtime). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like config__open_relay, which is a subset. However, the term 'MERGED' is ambiguous and lacks explanation, slightly reducing 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where sibling tools like config__open_relay are more appropriate. Users are left to infer usage from action names.

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