config_explain

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior of not exposing command line secrets, which is positive. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions.

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 of 17 words, concisely conveying the tool's purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what is explained (config, paths, directory, defaults) and a notable behavioral trait (no secrets). It does not describe output format, but completeness is high for a simple explain tool.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies because the description adds context about what the tool explains, which is effectively the input.

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 explains effective config, config paths, data directory, and safety defaults. The verb 'Explain' and resource 'config' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling explain tools like policy_explain or process_explain.

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 guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the sibling names.

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