get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-style retrieval operation ('获取') and states what will be returned. It does not explicitly say it is side-effect-free or describe token failure behavior, but for a simple getter this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and it explicitly names the key outputs. There is 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 simple, fully parameter-documented getter, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target config file, the library dimension, and the returned fields. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on token requirements or error behavior would add completeness, but the required token parameters already signal those prerequisites.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the library enum and token meanings. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond restating the desktop/mobile distinction, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('获取'), resource ('config.json'), scope ('指定游戏库（桌面/移动）'), and return contents ('games 列表以及配置 sha'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_cover_image or get_apk_id without requiring schema inspection.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the config.json or games list for a desktop or mobile library. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or any mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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