Mne Get Config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'show' which implies read-only, and it states users change parameters via a separate command, implying this tool does not modify anything. However, it doesn't explicitly declare non-destructiveness, nor does it mention what happens when no configuration exists or the output format. Given the zero annotation support, a bit more explicit safety disclosure would have been helpful.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show the configured default analysis parameters'), then lists the types and the mechanism for changing them. There is no fluff or redundancy; every clause adds value.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, why it matters (fallback behavior), and how defaults are changed externally. It doesn't describe the output schema structure, but that's provided separately, and it doesn't mention edge cases like missing configuration, which is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any. The baseline of 4 applies here because with no parameters there is nothing additional to clarify. The description focuses on the output content, which 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 clearly states a specific action ('Show') and resource ('configured default analysis parameters'), enumerates the parameter types, and explains their role as fallback values. This distinguishes it from processing tools like mne_filter or mne_plot_raw, making its purpose 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?

It says the parameters are those 'that the structured tools fall back to when a parameter is omitted', which tells an agent when to call it (to understand defaults before invoking other tools). It also hints at how to change them via `mne-mcp configure`, implicitly differentiating this read-only inspection from modification. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X' but that's not necessary given its unique role.

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