config_inspect

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: config payloads remain readable and are base64-encoded in Spec.Data. This goes beyond the annotations and warns the agent about an unusual security-relevant behavior.

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 front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds only high-value context: the prerequisite, the comparison to secrets, the input form, and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return document fields. The single parameter's semantics are explained, the required environment is stated, and the alternative listing tool is named. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema only provides a bare string parameter, but the description clarifies that id_or_name accepts either a config ID or name. It also tells the agent how to discover valid values via config_list, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a swarm config's full inspect payload by id or name.' It clearly differentiates itself from config_list (enumerate vs read one) and from secrets, making its purpose unambiguous among many sibling tools.

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 states when to use this tool: after enumerating with config_list, and when the full payload is needed. It also notes the requirement for a swarm manager and contrasts configs with secrets, helping the agent choose correctly among similar inspect tools.

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