get_account_backend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the HTTP method (GET), the return object type, and the meaning of each return field. It does not mention error conditions or authentication, but for a read-only configuration getter, this is adequate 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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary, an explanation of the underlying API call, a bulleted list of return fields, and a use case. Every section adds value, and the structure makes the information easily scannable.

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 has zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return object structure and the practical use case. This is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it, with no ambiguity relative to sibling getters.

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 has no parameter semantics to explain. According to the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly focuses on the return value and use case instead.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('MQTT backend configuration'), and immediately names the exact API method (GET /api/account/backend). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_transport or get_account_info, which target different resources.

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 'Use case' section provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (during MQTT troubleshooting, confirming server URL and certificate settings). It does not name alternative tools, but the clear scenario is sufficient to guide selection among the many getter siblings.

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