config_config_get

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

The description only states the basic operation and as_type coercion, but does not disclose behavior regarding missing keys, default values, or error conditions. With no annotations provided, this lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and a key parameter explanation. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The description adequately covers the core function for a simple config get tool, but lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., handling missing keys). The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but more guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaning to the 'as_type' parameter by listing supported types (int/float/bool/str/json), compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage. However, 'name' and 'key' parameters are not elaborated, and 'default' is not mentioned.

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 it is a read operation ('Get a config value') and mentions the key feature of as_type coercion, distinguishing it from sibling config tools like config_config_set, config_config_list, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other config tools, such as config_config_list for listing or config_config_set for setting values. The description assumes the user knows the context.

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