get_mcp_tool_config_override_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of authentication needs, scope of the override lookup, behavior when no override exists, or error semantics. For a read tool whose annotations carry the burden, this is thin.

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 fragment restating the title. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure: no sentence earns its place because none conveys information beyond the name. A short but informative description would be superior.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what an override record contains or at least that it returns the override configuration, but it does not. Combined with no usage guidance and no sibling differentiation, the definition is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently amid many similar MCP config tools.

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% and both parameters (mcp_server_id, tool_name) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (MCP tool config override) with an implied read action ('Get'), so the object of retrieval is identifiable. However, it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from its close siblings (add_mcp_tool_config_override_route, update_mcp_tool_config_override_route, remove_mcp_tool_config_override_route). It is minimally viable rather than genuinely descriptive.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative applies. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this reads an existing override rather than creating, updating, or removing one. With four near-identical sibling tools in the list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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