config_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]', mentions 'sanitised and bounded' output, and notes a special haproxy behavior. It does not detail potential errors or rate limits, but the key safety and output traits are covered.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loaded with the READ intent and resource. The Args section is clearly separated. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 covers purpose, parameter, and some behavioral traits, but it lacks details about the return format (no output schema) and what 'bounded' means in practice. For a simple read tool it's mostly adequate, but an agent might need more context on output structure or error conditions.

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 'Args' section explains the target parameter as 'Proxy target name from config' and specifies that omitting it uses the default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, which only gives a title and default null. The contextual mention of caddy/traefik/haproxy also aids understanding.

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 reads the live config tree or merged dynamic state, with a specific '[READ]' verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_config_value, but the resource scope (full tree vs specific value) is implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_config_value or search_config. The description only explains what the tool does, not the appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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