config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Prints the configuration,' implying a read-only operation that outputs data, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as format of output (e.g., JSON, text), potential side effects (e.g., if it logs or caches), authentication requirements, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate by stating what it does. However, it lacks completeness in explaining the output format or behavioral context, which is important for a tool that 'prints' configuration without further details. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 verb ('Prints') and resource ('configuration of the Sitecore MCP server'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which primarily involve item manipulation, security, indexing, etc., though its unique focus on server configuration is implied by the name and description.

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 alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools for various Sitecore operations (e.g., item management, security, logging), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like 'logging-get-logs' or 'common-get-cache' that might also provide system information.

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