get_current_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the configuration is read from environment variables, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe the return format, potential errors (e.g., if environment variables are missing), or any side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second briefly notes the return. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return note more seamlessly, but it's still efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and the data source (environment variables), but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error handling. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values, but other contextual elements are missing, making it adequate but not fully helpful.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It implicitly confirms there are no required inputs by not mentioning any, which aligns with the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取当前使用的SMTP配置（从环境变量读取）' (Get the currently used SMTP configuration, read from environment variables). It specifies both the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('SMTP配置' - SMTP configuration), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_smtp_configs' by focusing on the 'current' configuration from environment variables. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_smtp_configs' (which might retrieve multiple or all configurations) or in relation to the email-sending siblings. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing environment variables set, or exclusions. This lack of usage guidance is a clear gap.

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