get_ocio_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation and mentions returning JSON. However, it lacks explicit details on potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would strengthen transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, using sections (Returns, Args) to present information clearly without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the input parameter and the type of config data returned. It is complete enough for a retrieval tool, though it could briefly mention that the output is a JSON object.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the config_path parameter's purpose and default behavior (uses $OCIO environment variable if omitted). This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool 'get OCIO config information as JSON' and lists the specific config elements returned (color spaces, displays, views, looks). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ocio_state which returns current state.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to retrieve config info) and explains the optional parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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