ai_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'view' implies a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it requires authentication, or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the config items. No wasted words, and it effectively conveys the tool's scope in a compact form.

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 simple no-parameter config viewer, the description is largely complete: it names the specific config attributes the tool will show. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit list of fields, and the low complexity means the agent has enough information to use it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty and fully covers the parameter surface, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb 'Lihat config' (view config) with a specific resource (AI config) and lists the fields it covers (prefix, allowlist, react, cooldown, queue count). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling action tools like ai_reply and ai_clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings like ai_inbox or ai_reply. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for checking config, with no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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