get_config_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: off-caddy platforms return the support matrix's teaching note instead of an error, and dot-segments in the path are rejected.

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 core behavior and the example path are front-loaded, and the Args block is compact. The trailing parenthetical about off-caddy platforms is slightly awkwardly placed but still earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies the return is a single config value plus the off-caddy teaching note, which is adequate. It does not describe what happens for a non-existent path, a minor remaining gap.

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 carries the burden, and it does: 'path' is a slash-separated config path with dot-segments rejected, and 'target' is a proxy target name that can be omitted for the default. Both parameters gain meaning absent from the 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one value from the caddy config tree) and gives a concrete example path. It contrasts implicitly with the write/delete siblings via the [READ] tag, though it never names an alternative like search_config or route_detail.

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 [READ] tag and the exact-path framing imply this is the exact-lookup tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use search_config instead' guidance. The off-caddy fallback note is a useful edge-case rule but not a when-to-use rule.

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