devtools_show_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output shape (status, stdout config dump, stderr, exit_code) and an optional prerequisite. The verb 'Display' and use-case word 'Inspect' also imply a non-mutating operation, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects.'

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 front-loads the main purpose in one clear sentence, but then repeats known metadata such as TOOL_NAME and DISPLAY_NAME. The additional USECASE, OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION, PREREQUISITES, and RELATED_TOOLS fields are useful, so the structure is reasonable overall despite some 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 zero-argument configuration display tool, this description covers purpose, use case, invocation, output, prerequisites, and a related tool. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect from the result.

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 the schema already covers this fully with an empty properties object. The description reinforces this with 'Call with no arguments' and 'INPUT_DESCRIPTION=none,' which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Display the current dev-tools deployment configuration.' The USECASE further clarifies it is for inspecting the effective SNO/RHOSO configuration before deploying. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the resource and action are unambiguous.

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?

The USECASE field gives clear situational guidance: inspect the effective SNO/RHOSO configuration before deploying. INSTRUCTIONS explicitly says to call with no arguments, and PREREQUISITES notes an optional config file. It does not explain when to prefer a sibling tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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