get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the returned configuration is sanitized and omits API keys, which is important context. It does not mention read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or whether any configuration values are omitted beyond API keys, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element — action, resource, and sanitization note — earns its place.

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-parameter getter this is close to complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the configuration object contains or how detailed the returned data will be. The sanitization note helps, but an agent still has limited expectations about the response shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current orchestrator configuration'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to overlap with configuration retrieval, so the lack of differentiation is minor.

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 purpose: an agent should call this when it needs the orchestrator's current configuration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives such as session or pipeline introspection tools.

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