mcdev_explain_config_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('short summary and wiki file hints'), which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether explanations are static or project-aware, so gaps remain.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, examples, and the output in a compact form. The example key list slightly duplicates the schema's known-keys list, which is minor redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only explainer with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the target concept space and what comes back (summary plus wiki hints). Only the relationship to sibling lookup tools is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'topic' parameter already documents its known keys in the schema description. The description's parenthetical key list adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Explain) and resource (.mcdevrc.json concept) and gives concrete example keys, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_mcdev_project_config or mcdev_search_docs, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for learning what a config concept means, as opposed to read_mcdev_project_config (reads an actual project's values) or mcdev_search_docs (free-text docs search). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given.

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