get_smart_retrieval_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Chinese that directly states what the tool does. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action, the resource, and adds valuable context about content. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 provides basic purpose information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the configuration returns, whether it's a complete or partial view, or how it relates to other config tools. For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more completeness would be helpful.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. Baseline would be 4 for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.

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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('智能检索配置' meaning 'smart retrieval configuration'), specifying it retrieves configuration information. It adds detail about content ('包含代码分析优化策略' meaning 'includes code analysis optimization strategies'), which helps distinguish it from generic config tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_workflow_config or show_config_summary.

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. With siblings like get_workflow_config, load_config, and show_config_summary that also retrieve configuration data, there's no indication of what makes this tool specific for 'smart retrieval' scenarios or when other config tools would be more appropriate.

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