config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but adds little beyond implying a read-only display. It does disclose the returned fields (vault path, clouds, default cloud, caps), which is useful, but says nothing about freshness, permissions, or whether values are cached vs computed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing parenthetical '(initiative not relevant)' is slightly cryptic but does carry a scoping signal, so it roughly earns its place.

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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (vault path, clouds, default, caps). Remaining gap is the lack of routing relative to sibling configuration/list tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface to document, and the description correctly adds nothing about inputs.

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 ('Show') and resource ('resolved configuration'), then enumerates the contents: vault path, configured clouds and default, and caps. Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'clouds', 'path', or 'policy', which appear to cover overlapping surfaces.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The only routing hint is the parenthetical '(initiative not relevant)', which scopes out one case but leaves the relationship to 'clouds'/'path' unexplained.

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