x_config_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which implies non-destructive, but it doesn't state whether the tool requires specific credentials, what happens if the key is not found, or whether it returns null or errors. No behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation are disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices usefulness; while every word is purposeful, the description lacks necessary elaboration on parameters and context.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a set of closely related config tools, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, when to use it vs. x_config_list, or what the response contains. The tool cannot be effectively invoked based solely on this description.

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 input schema has 4 parameters (key, scopeUserId, scopeTenantId, scopeAccountId) with zero schema descriptions. The description mentions 'tenant/principal' but does not explain that scopeUserId, scopeTenantId, and scopeAccountId are the scoping inputs, nor what 'key' refers to. It provides no meaning beyond what the field names already suggest, so it fails to compensate 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 clearly states the tool reads a single Postgres configuration value scoped to a tenant/principal. The verb 'Read' and resource 'configuration value' make the primary action clear, and it's distinct from x_config_list (which lists) and x_config_set (which writes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from x_config_list or mention that multiple scope parameters exist, so it falls short of the highest clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus x_config_list or x_config_set, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The name and description imply a single-value lookup, but nothing explicit guides the agent on selection.

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