get_config_info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses API key masking, a 10-second timeout, and a request to /models endpoint. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' and 'test' and reinforced by the connection-test detail. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Well-organized with bold headers and bullet points. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value (features, best-practice usage, behavior). No fluff.

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 parametrized-less tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (config, connectivity, models), usage context, and edge cases (timeout, masking). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to describe; nothing needed.

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+resource: 'Returns current Grok Search MCP server configuration and tests API connectivity.' Lists three concrete features. Unambiguous and clearly distinct from search/fetch/planning siblings.

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?

Explicitly recommends 'Use this tool first when debugging connection or configuration issues.' No when-not-to-use or alternative routing given, but siblings are unrelated, so the context is clear.

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