get_config_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Lee" weakly implies a non-destructive read, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the file is missing, whether the printer argument changes resolution scope, or any limits. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste, which is appropriately sized. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight precision, so it is not a strong example of economical structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Beyond that, the definition is inadequate for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage: no parameter meaning, no usage context, and no behavioral detail are supplied anywhere.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: neither the required "filename" nor the "printer" argument (with its non-obvious "default" value) is explained. The word "archivo" loosely maps to filename but adds no format, path, or resolution semantics.

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 ("Lee") and resource ("archivo de configuración"), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings like search_config, list_config_files, or validate_config, leaving the agent to infer which read variant applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_config or list_config_files, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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