sbis_config

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

Without any annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'read-only v0.1', which indicates safety, but fails to mention important details like authentication requirements, error behavior, or what actions are performed. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose and read-only nature with zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and front-loaded with key information.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain what 'configuration status and setup instructions' entails or the format of the output, leaving room for ambiguity. Could be more complete by specifying the kind of configuration details returned.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is adequate. No additional semantic context is needed beyond the 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 clearly states the tool checks 'Saby/SBIS configuration status and setup instructions', identifying a specific action on a distinct resource. The sibling tools (e.g., sbis_list_documents, sbis_current_user) cover different functionalities, so this tool's purpose is well-differentiated.

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 implies usage when configuration status is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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