config_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool only reports configuration state ('which config file was loaded and which rules are actually active'), strongly implying a read-only inspection rather than a mutation. It stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-free or auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff: the first states the tool's purpose, the second gives the key usage trigger and benefit. The most useful guidance ('Call this first if results look wrong or empty') is front-loaded and easy for an agent to act on.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, when to invoke it, and what information it provides (config file and active rules). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is required.

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 uses a clear verb ('Show') with a specific resource ('what this server is currently configured to do') and then adds concrete detail: it reports which config file was loaded and which rules are active. This makes it distinct from sibling job/profile tools such as list_jobs or get_profile.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first if results look wrong or empty' and explains the advantage ('faster than guessing'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the conditional guidance is clear and sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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