get_current_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns JSON configuration info, and the verb '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation. It also lists valid input sections, helping the agent avoid invalid calls. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is safe or has no side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 and well-structured, with a clear title sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the parameter choices, and the output format. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values exhaustively. It covers the parameter semantics and return type sufficiently. However, it could have provided a brief note about error handling or the structure of the 'all' response, but this is a minor omission given the output schema.

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 schema has only one parameter with no description (coverage 0%), but the tool description fully compensates by enumerating all possible values ('all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', 'weights') and explaining the default. This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter beyond the raw 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 begins with '获取当前系统配置' (Get current system configuration), which is a specific verb + resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_system_status and get_storage_status by focusing on configuration, and it further enumerates specific config sections (crawler, push, keywords, weights), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 guidance on the section parameter with valid values and a default, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_status or get_storage_status. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so the tool-selection guidance is minimal.

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