st.config.get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only and reads parsed config, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens when a path is missing, how the default value is applied, or what the response structure looks like. These are clear gaps but not contradictions.

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 filler and front-loads the core action. The clause 'with default value and code usage hints' is compact but slightly ambiguous, so it is efficient yet not perfectly clear.

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 low-complexity tool with two flat parameters, the description gives enough to attempt a read operation, but with no annotations and no output schema it should say more about return behavior, path syntax, and the includeDefault effect. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 for documenting the two parameters. It alludes to 'dotted config path' for path and 'default value' for includeDefault, but it never explicitly defines the boolean parameter or clarifies whether the default is an input fallback or an output-inclusion flag. This is only partial compensation.

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 a specific action ('Read parsed config.yaml or one dotted config path') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like st.config.patch (a write operation) and st.config_locations (locations, not values). The phrase 'with default value and code usage hints' adds useful scope but is slightly vague, preventing a 5.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as st.config.patch or st.config_locations. The 'Read' verb implies a read-only use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or related-tool routing are provided.

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