get_config_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]', indicating non-mutation, and adds useful details about path validation (dot-segments rejected) and off-caddy platform fallback behavior. This goes beyond simple read-only labeling, though it stops short of describing error handling or return format.

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 primary purpose and read-only indicator. The argument explanations are concise and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters.

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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, parameters, and a platform-specific edge case. However, it does not specify the return type, behavior when the path is not found, or error handling, which would be useful given no output schema. Overall, it is adequate but has minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. Both parameters are explained with specific meaning: path is a slash-separated config path with dot-segment rejection, and target is a proxy target name with a default behavior of omission. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool retrieves a single value from the Caddy config tree by path, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_config or config_snapshot. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'caddy config tree by config path' make the purpose 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_config or config_snapshot. It does mention off-caddy platform behavior, but this is a behavioral note, not usage guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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