get_configs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating view operation ('查看') and lists which config domains are surfaced, but says nothing about return format, whether values reflect live/active state, or whether any permissions are needed.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the scope of the returned config. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the configuration areas returned, which stands in for a return-value spec. It is nearly complete; the only gap is that '等' (etc.) leaves the exact field set open-ended.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs, and the listed config categories act as an informal picture of what the call yields.

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?

States a specific verb ('查看' / view) and resource ('内核运行配置' / kernel runtime config), then enumerates the configuration areas covered (运行模式, TUN, 混合端口, 局域网共享). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_rules, get_connections, and get_version, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for configuration that pairs with the sibling setters (set_mode, set_tun, toggle_system_proxy). There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related data.

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