get_instance_configuration

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

The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, the description does not disclose auth requirements, response shape, or whether the operation is safe to call repeatedly; for a zero-parameter getter, this is acceptable but not deeply 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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema available, and the description naming precisely what is returned, the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. The ambiguity with project-level config is already mitigated by the 'instance-level' qualifier.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds the useful context that the output is instance-level configuration and active feature flags, which is sufficient for a no-parameter operation.

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 a specific action ('Return') and a specific resource ('instance-level OpenProject configuration and active feature flags'). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_project_configuration, which target project-level config.

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 term 'instance-level' gives clear context that this is for global/system-wide configuration rather than project-scoped data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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