get_mass_config_parent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description additionally discloses the exact return shape ({ config_path, parent_config_path, has_parent, config_class }), which is useful behavioral context absent from the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first gives purpose plus the sibling relationship, the second lists return fields. Nothing is wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, which an agent needs. It is complete for a simple one-parameter read tool, though it could note the failure case (e.g. asset not found) for full robustness.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents config_path as the asset path. The description's reference to UMassEntityConfigAsset matches but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (parent config path of a UMassEntityConfigAsset), and explicitly identifies its counterpart set_mass_config_parent, making it distinguishable from that sibling 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?

The framing as the 'inverse of set_mass_config_parent' clearly implies the read context that selects this tool over the setter, giving an agent a reliable usage signal. It does not, however, state any preconditions (e.g. asset must exist) or exclusions.

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