get_current_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (JSON) and lists configurable sections, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The name 'get' implies a safe read, but the description does not elaborate beyond that.

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-organized: a clear header, an Args section detailing the parameter and its options, and a Returns section. Every line serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what parameter it accepts (with valid values), and what it returns (JSON). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and the presence of an output schema means detailed return fields are not required in the description.

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 only defines 'section' with a string type and default 'all', with no description or enums. The description fully compensates by listing all accepted values ('all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', 'weights') and their meanings, along with the default behavior. This adds substantial semantic value that the schema lacks.

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 function: retrieving the current system configuration. It lists specific configuration sections (crawler, push, keywords, weights), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_system_status or get_rss_feeds_status. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '系统配置' (system configuration) are specific and unambiguous.

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 is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context about what sections are available, but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to use instead.

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