show_config_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '显示' (display/show) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or mention any other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether the data is cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 with two clear phrases that communicate the core purpose. The first phrase states what the tool does, and the second clarifies the scope ('完整显示所有配置信息' - completely display all configuration information). There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explain what 'configuration' refers to in this context or what format the summary will be in. Given the sibling tools suggest this is part of a configuration management system, more context about what distinguishes this summary from other configuration tools 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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as there's no need for parameter explanation in the description.

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 tool's purpose: '显示配置摘要' (display configuration summary) and '完整显示所有配置信息' (completely display all configuration information). It uses specific verbs ('显示' - display/show) and identifies the resource ('配置摘要' - configuration summary). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow_config' or 'load_config', which appear to be related configuration 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling configuration tools (get_workflow_config, get_smart_retrieval_config, get_file_naming_rules, load_config), but the description doesn't explain how this 'show_config_summary' differs from those more specific tools or when it's the appropriate choice.

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