Server capabilities, posture & active config

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, which matches the described posture reporting. The description adds behavioral traits beyond that: redacting secrets, remaining available when other groups are gated, and reporting write-safety posture. It doesn't contradict annotations. Slight deduction because the tool itself is a read operation, but the additional value is significant.

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 dense but efficient, listing a lot of content in a single flowing sentence, then two short punchy sentences for the 'run it before acting' and redaction hints. Every clause adds value; front-loaded with what it does. No filler.

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 zero params and a rich natural-language spec of the response contents (portal URL, user, config file, vc status, browser-assist, audit log), the description is complete. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by itemizing the report's contents. Nothing omitted that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't add parameter details (none exist), but it enriches the purpose of the no-params call by listing what the response will contain, which helps the agent anticipate output. No loss.

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?

Description states precisely what the tool reports: enabled tool groups/tools, posture, config, vc status, browser-assist flag, audit logging. Identifies itself as 'THE orientation call' and enumerates distinct content areas, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_config, get_version, or check_connection.

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 instructs 'run it before acting' and notes it 'stays available even when other tool groups are gated off.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies it should be the first call. No exclusion needed since no alternative tool fulfills this orientation role, and the description effectively differentiates it.

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