Get Server Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the underlying source views, the specific risk conditions that produce a Flag, and the default filtering behavior. It stops short of describing output shape or how many flags typically fire.

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 resource and source views are front-loaded, and the flag examples are packed into one dense sentence with an 'and more' catch-all that costs little. Slightly long for a one-parameter read tool, but every clause carries 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?

For a read-only, closed-world tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is inspected, what counts as flagged, and the default filter. Return format is unspecified, but annotations and the read-only nature keep the risk low.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's meaning, including its default and the false case, is fully documented in the schema. The description's sentence about onlyFlagged=true repeats that structured information rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact resource and its backing views (sp_configure, sys.configurations) and enumerates the concrete risky settings it inspects, so an agent can tell this server-level config audit apart from siblings like mssql_db_config_health or mssql_memory_pressure. The verb 'returns' plus the scoping make the operation 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for auditing server-level configuration risk, and the default-onlyFlagged behavior is stated. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus mssql_db_config_health or mssql_memory_pressure, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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