mne_get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The verb 'Show' clearly indicates a read-only operation. It adds context beyond the schema by explaining that the config values are fallback defaults used by other tools, and that they are modified through a terminal command, which helps the agent understand the tool's role without trying to mutate state.

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 sentence that starts with the action 'Show' and immediately lists the config contents, then provides related usage context. Every clause adds value; there is no wasted text or repetition of schema information.

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 simple getter with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, why those values matter (fallback defaults), and how they are changed. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (none exist), but it does list the fields the config covers (line frequency, montage, etc.), which enriches the output semantics even though no input is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource ('configured default analysis parameters') and enumerates the contents (line frequency, montage, etc.), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like mne_get_info (raw data info) and mne_session_info (session state), as it targets the default configuration used as fallback.

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 description explains that these parameters are the fallback for structured tools when a parameter is omitted, which implies when to use this tool (to inspect defaults before calling other tools). It also mentions how users can change them via `mne-mcp configure`, adding practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to know defaults' or list exclusions.

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