get_engine_ini_value

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the missing-key contract (found=false with empty value), that the read is from a merged in-memory config, and the config_file naming constraint. This goes meaningfully past the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then the sibling pointer. Efficient overall, though 'Read-only' overlaps with annotations and the return-shape line partially repeats the missing-key sentence.

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 no-output-schema read tool, the description supplies purpose, the missing-key behavior, return shape, and the writer counterpart. Nothing critical is missing, though the merge precedence (which INI wins) is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents section, key, and config_file. The description's parameter note ('Pass config_file without .ini') largely restates the schema's own admonition that 'Engine.ini is not resolved', so it adds little 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?

States a specific verb ('Read one key') and resource (config key from the merged in-memory GConfig of an INI), and immediately scopes it against the sibling writer set_engine_ini_value. An agent can distinguish this read tool from its write counterpart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the writer counterpart ('Writer: set_engine_ini_value'), giving clear read-vs-write context. However it doesn't state exclusions or when another getter (e.g. project settings) would be preferable, so context is clear but not exhaustive.

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