sassy_get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It transparently discloses the read-only nature ('Get') and details the return payload (config, OS, Python, memory, disk, uptime, modules, usage stats). It does not mention potential side effects, but for a getter this is sufficient. It adds context beyond the name by specifying the exact information returned.

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: two short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and a bullet-like return list in the second. The 'DC get_config equivalent' is slightly cryptic and adds minor noise, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important 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's simplicity (0 params, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose and return contents, and the output schema can handle formal return types. The context signal 'Has output schema: true' means the description need not explain return formats, yet it still provides a helpful overview. No important gaps remain for a config getter.

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 per rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none; it appropriately focuses on the return value, which is more relevant. Schema coverage is 100% by vacancy, so no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Get full SassyMCP configuration and system info.' It clearly defines the scope and lists the exact categories of returned data (config settings, OS, Python, memory, disk, uptime, loaded modules, tool usage stats), making it unmistakable what the tool does and distinguishing it from other getters like state_get or env_get.

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: 'Get full SassyMCP configuration and system info' clearly suggests using this when you need configuration and system details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it contrast with siblings like sassy_observability_metrics or sassy_set_config. The 'DC get_config equivalent' line hints at compatibility but does not provide actionable guidance.

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