get_config_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the path doesn't exist, whether it's cached or real-time, or what format the returned value takes. For a tool that reads configuration data, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with no 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?

For a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what type of value is returned (string, number, object), whether there are default values, what error responses look like, or how this differs from the sibling 'get_config_summary' tool. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description. The description mentions '指定路径' (specified path) but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema already documents about dot notation and array indexing. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter semantics 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 '获取配置文件中指定路径的值' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a value from a configuration file at a specified path. It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get/retrieve) and identifies the resource ('配置文件' - configuration file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_config_summary', which might retrieve summary information rather than specific values.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_config_value' versus 'get_config_summary' (a clear sibling tool) or 'set_config_value' (the complementary write operation). There's no indication of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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