bi_get_sysconfig

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds an important behavioral detail: admin permission is required. It also discloses that it may expose DIO/MQTT state inline, which tells the agent the output can contain more than the named fields. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and admin requirement, then a precise usage direction. Every clause contributes information: the config items enumerated, the DIO/MQTT note, and the 'instead of screenshot' guidance.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what the tool returns, who can use it, and when to prefer it. No output schema exists, so the inline DIO/MQTT note helps set expectations without over-specifying.

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?

Schema covers the single 'raw' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'shaped view' language meaningfully elaborates the default return format, adding context beyond the schema's generic boolean 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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get BI system config' with a concrete snapshot listing (FTP archive enable, global schedule, manual record time limit). It also signals admin requirement, which distinguishes it from read tools that don't need elevated access.

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?

States 'Use this instead of asking the user to screenshot Settings → Other,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), but it provides enough context about its unique purpose among the large sibling set.

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