get_ai_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response contains all nine sections and that file_handling, followups, csat and comment_ai are plan-entitlement booleans — useful return-content context, though it omits what the other five sections are.

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?

Three short sentences, but the last one is awkwardly constructed ("available on file_handling, followups, csat and comment_ai says whether the plan includes that feature") and forces re-parsing. Front-loading the purpose is good; the labeling of the four flags could be far cleaner.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only partly does: it names four of the nine sections and gives no shape for the rest. Adequate to call correctly, but an agent cannot predict the payload structure.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call that returns the full configuration.

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 and resource ("Get the AI configuration") and adds scope ("All nine sections in one call"), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_ai_channels. The final sentence is understandable as a description of entitlement flags but is grammatically garbled enough to slow an agent down.

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 only implied by the name — an agent can infer it should call this to inspect AI settings. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_ai_channels or other config-reading siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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