get_server_config

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It states what values are returned (loaded modules, tool count, book path, debug mode, version), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this reflects live state, whether changes take effect immediately, or how this config relates to switch_book or other session-affecting tools. The returned-fields list adds some transparency but doesn't fully describe session semantics.

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 concise at two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, the second enumerates returned fields, and the final sentence gives the use case. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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?

With zero parameters and no complexity, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the returned content, and a concrete use case. An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining the return format in detail. It could add a touch more about the session/configuration semantics, but this is adequate for a zero-parameter introspection tool.

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, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given there are no parameters to document; the description's task of explaining the return fields is handled well.

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 what the tool does: 'Get the server's loaded configuration' with a specific verb+resource. It also enumerates the returned content (modules, tool count, book path, debug mode, version), which helps distinguish it from data-retrieval siblings like get_customer or get_book_summary since it targets the server/session itself rather than financial data.

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 a usage hint: 'Use this to verify which tools are available in this session.' This gives a concrete use case. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the given use case is fairly prescriptive and there aren't obvious sibling competitors for this configuration-inspection purpose.

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