Config

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

The description describes actions like 'cache_clear (wipe embeddings)' and 'setup_reset (clear credentials)' which imply destructive behavior, but annotations set destructiveHint: false. This is a clear contradiction. Additionally, while it lists some behavioral traits, the inconsistency undermines transparency.

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 paragraph that packs many actions into a few lines. While not overly long, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and front-loads the action list without clear organization. It could be more concise by grouping related actions.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, multiple actions, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or the output schema, and leaves important details uncovered (e.g., force, repo_root). The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only partially explains parameters. It mentions that for 'set' action, key and value are used and key can be 'log_level', but does not explain force, repo_root, or the required action parameter beyond listing action names. Significant gaps remain.

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's purpose as managing server configuration, status, and credential setup, and lists specific actions (status, set, cache_clear, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling config__open_relay by being the main config tool, but could more explicitly differentiate when to use each.

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 implies usage by listing actions and their effects (e.g., 'status (show state)', 'cache_clear (wipe embeddings)'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'help' or 'config__open_relay'. It only mentions 'Use `help` tool for full docs', which is weak guidance.

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