config_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds two valuable behavioral details: secret-keyed values return <redacted>, and .env is never read. It doesn't cover other behaviors like error handling, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then examples and caveats. Zero wasted words.

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 tool is simple (one param, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers purpose, examples, redaction, and env exclusion, which is adequate for a config lookup. Could mention missing-key behavior but not essential.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the one parameter is fully described). The description's example 'app.name' adds marginal value beyond the schema's example, but doesn't compensate beyond the baseline.

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 verb+resource: "Dotted config lookup" with an example. It is distinct from all sibling tools (routes, migrations, models, etc.), so purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context (config lookup) and an important exclusion: "Never reads .env." This implies when not to use the tool, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly. Still, usage context is clear.

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