config_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: the requirement for a swarm manager, the fact that config data remains readable, and that Spec.Data is base64-encoded. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every sentence adds value, from the swarm requirement to the payload readability distinction, and the args/returns block summarizes key information without 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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, return format, and relationship to sibling tools. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'id_or_name - The config id or name' and clarifies the return format, giving the agent enough semantic detail to invoke the tool correctly.

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 distinguishes from sibling tools like config_list (enumerate) and secret_inspect (secrets not readable after creation).

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?

Explicitly states 'Requires a swarm manager' and contrasts with secrets: 'Unlike a secret, a config's payload IS readable after creation.' It directs users to config_list for enumeration and this tool for reading contents, providing clear alternatives.

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