get_config

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'emit', which implies output generation, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, permissions, or what happens with invalid harnesses. 'Ready-to-paste' hints at output format but little else.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the tool's purpose and the list of harnesses.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this short description is insufficient. It does not explain how the parameters relate, what 'name' refers to, or when a user would need env/args, although the output schema does exist.

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%, yet the description only explains the `harness` parameter by listing valid values. It provides no meaning for `name`, `command`, `env`, or `args`, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Emit') and a concrete resource ('ready-to-paste MCP config block') with a list of valid harnesses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vet_server or list_harnesses.

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 context is clear: use it to generate an MCP config block for a particular harness. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_harnesses.

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