get system config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect properties. The description adds beyond that by specifying the output is 'allowlisted, non-sensitive' (filtering behavior) and mentions the underlying command 'v-list-sys-config', offering implementation detail that helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. It omits any filler or redundancy, and every clause adds value: the resource, the safety qualifiers, and the reference to the verified command. This is appropriately concise for a simple no-parameter tool.

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?

The description is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, but it lacks differentiation from the closely related sibling get_system_info. The agent may be uncertain which tool to call without additional context on what constitutes 'configuration' versus 'info'. The description also does not mention any potential latency or permission constraints, though the output schema presumably covers return shape.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, as there are no properties to describe). The description adds no parameter-related information, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4 because there is nothing to clarify. The description effectively communicates the nature of the result rather than parameters.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('HestiaCP system configuration summary'), with scope qualifiers ('allowlisted, non-sensitive'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_system_info, though the resource wording is distinct enough to infer a different output. The purpose is clear without being a tautology.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_system_info, nor when it is not appropriate. The only contextual hint is 'allowlisted, non-sensitive', which implies a filtered view, but there is no explicit comparison or selection criteria.

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