configure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'Returns: Current configuration' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether changes are persistent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to adequately disclose behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured parameter documentation. The Args/Returns format is efficient, though the initial statement 'Configure the server' could be more informative.

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 4-parameter configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks critical context about behavioral aspects, side effects, and relationship to other tools. The return value is mentioned but not detailed. This is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing clear parameter documentation in the Args section. Each parameter's purpose is explained (e.g., 'Path to YAML config file', 'Whether to enable parse tree caching'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 the tool 'Configure[s] the server', which provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what aspects of the server are configured. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'diagnose_config' or 'clear_cache', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when configuration changes take effect, or how it relates to siblings like 'diagnose_config' or 'register_project_tool'.

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