config_config_require

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

The description discloses the return format but does not specify if the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover behavioral aspects more thoroughly.

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 very short and gets to the point immediately. However, it sacrifices parameter explanation for brevity, which would be useful.

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 validation tool, the description provides the core purpose and return value. Missing details about config store context and parameter types limit its 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 input schema has 2 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'name' or 'keys' represent, leaving their meanings implicit. This is insufficient for proper usage.

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 verb 'Assert' and resource 'required keys' in config context, specifying the return format '{ok: bool, missing: [...]}'. This distinguishes it from sibling config tools like get, set, delete, 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 usage guidelines are provided; the tool’s purpose implies it should be used to validate required keys exist in a config store, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.

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