get_current_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and mentions the JSON return format, but does not address potential authentication requirements, whether the config reflects live or cached state, or any other side effects. Sufficient for a simple getter, but not richly 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 concise and well-structured with a front-loaded purpose and clear Args/Returns sections. It contains no fluff, though it slightly repeats the default value already present in the schema.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It documents all section choices and the return type. The only minor gap is not clarifying what 'current' means (e.g., live system state vs. persisted config), but this is not critical for a config getter.

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 schema only provides a default value and type for `section`, while the description adds all valid values: 'all', 'crawler', 'push', 'keywords', and 'weights'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by giving the agent the exact enumeration needed to call the tool correctly.

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 gets the current system configuration, with a specific resource (config) and verb (获取/get). It lists distinct config sections, which helps differentiate it from siblings like get_system_status or get_storage_status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains how to use the `section` parameter and its allowed values, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving usage context to inference.

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