config_path

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

The description describes a purely informational lookup ("report where the files are"), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. These directly conflict: either the tool mutates state (and the description omits that entirely) or the annotations are wrong, and the description gives the agent no way to resolve which.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, and "四层" is left unexplained, which keeps it just short of full marks.

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 tool takes no required parameters and its schema is fully documented, so little is needed. But with no output schema, the description could reasonably say what the report contains (four layer names and their resolved paths) and how the layers are ordered; that is missing, and the conflict with the annotations is left unaddressed.

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%: both `project` and `workdir` carry their own descriptions in the schema, including the default resolution for workdir. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete verb (report/announce) and resource (the file locations of the four config layers), so an agent can tell this is a path-lookup tool rather than a value-manipulation tool like config_show or config_set. It does not, however, name or exclude any sibling explicitly, and the phrase "四层配置" is never defined.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus config_show, config_set, config_unset, or config_providers, all of which live in the same config family. The agent must infer the distinction purely from the name and one-line description.

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