Server Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: it lists what is shown (safety modes, limits, blocked paths) and explicitly states 'Does not reveal auth tokens,' which supplements the annotations with useful security context.

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, crisp sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It lists the key content categories and the one exclusion, with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it shows, what it omits, and that it is a non-destructive lookup. An agent can invoke it correctly without further information.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively complete (100% of 0 parameters are described). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not discuss parameters, but none exist, so no additional clarification is 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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('CodexPro server configuration'), and enumerates the content (safety modes, limits, blocked paths). It also clarifies what is intentionally excluded (auth tokens), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishes it from generic read tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as `read`, `search`, or `server_config` itself. Context implies it is for configuration lookup, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description provides no usage context beyond its own purpose.

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