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

The description discloses that secrets are never exposed, only whether they are set — a critical behavior beyond the annotations' readOnly and idempotent hints. It also enumerates the fields returned, giving a clear picture of the operation's effects.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first lists the return contents, the second addresses secret handling. No filler words, front-loaded.

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 parameterless read-only getter, the description covers the main return values and the security guarantee. It doesn't specify the response structure (e.g., JSON) or potential edge cases, but those are minor for this simple operation.

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?

This tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description doesn't need to document anything.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('Prism's effective runtime configuration'), enumerating the categories of data included. Among sibling tools like prism_help, prism_info, prism_metrics, prism_ping, prism_sessions, this is the only one about configuration, so it distinguishes itself clearly.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list any exclusions. It implies use for retrieving configuration, but that guidance is not made explicit, which would be more helpful for an agent deciding between this and prism_info.

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