get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it excels: it declares 'Read-only, makes no Notion API call, and never returns credentials.' This discloses safety and scope explicitly. It also states the exact return fields, adding transparency beyond typical descriptions.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first fronts the purpose and key outputs; the second gives usage context and safety guarantees. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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?

This is a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description supplies everything needed: what it does, when to call it, its read-only nature, and the exact return structure. Nothing is missing for an agent to use it 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, so the schema (empty) already covers them 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. It adds no unnecessary parameter information, 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 the tool 'Reports this server's own settings' and names specific elements: version, transport, workspace root, and visible tools count. It is a diagnostic tool distinct from the many content-focused siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without confusion.

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 explicitly says 'Call this when a file-path or configuration error occurs and you need the server's actual settings rather than a guess.' This provides a concrete trigger condition. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the tool is unique enough that no alternative is obvious; still, some negative guidance is missing.

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