Get config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the tool is deprecated, which is behavioral context, but omits what config data is returned, authentication scope, or the identity of the replacement.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the operational mapping (GET /server/config, tag Server) and deprecation notice clearly separated. Efficient overall, though the deprecation line is ambiguous without naming the replacement.

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?

For a zero-param retrieval tool this could be near-complete, but the deprecation warning is incomplete without naming the replacement tool, and no output structure is given despite has_output_schema=false. An agent cannot know what config shape to expect or where to migrate.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to document. The empty input schema is fully consistent with the description's lack of parameter info.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve the current server configuration.' However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many similar config siblings (get_config, get_admin_config, get_user_config, get_public_config, get_config_defaults), so the agent cannot tell which config scope this covers without opening additional schemas.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_public_config, get_admin_config, or the deprecation replacement. The 'DEPRECATED — prefer the replacement operation if one exists' line acknowledges alternatives but gives no concrete pointer, and the entire sibling cluster of config tools is otherwise unmentioned.

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