config_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: the output includes per-item layer provenance. It says nothing about formatting or scope of the merge, so this is useful but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler; the parenthetical detail is the only extra and it earns its place. Sized appropriately for the tool's simplicity.

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 does carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and it covers the key point (current config plus per-item layer origin). Combined with complete parameter docs and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though a note on output shape or merge scope would round it out.

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 both parameters (project, workdir) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as precedence between the two paths or default resolution behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource (查看当前配置) and adds a distinguishing detail: it shows which layer each item comes from, which separates it from a plain dump. It doesn't explicitly contrast with read-only siblings like config_path or config_providers, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied by the verb — read the effective config — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to config_path/config_providers for agents looking for file locations or provider info instead. Adequate but with a clear gap given four config siblings.

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