get_cmb_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, which is consistent, and the parenthetical adds what CMB actually represents. It does not mention permission requirements or whether an unset config yields an empty or default response, so disclosure is only partial.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the explanatory parenthetical trailing. There is no filler or 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?

For a single-parameter read getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what is retrieved and why it matters (log data localization). Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when no boundary is configured.

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?

There is a single required parameter (account_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 (Get) and resource (CMB config) and expands the acronym to 'Customer Metadata Boundary', clarifying it is the data localization region for logs. No sibling tool touches CMB config, so it is implicitly differentiated, but it does not name a contrasting alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific resource: an agent needing an account's log-data localization region would select this. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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