get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full config as a dict and explicitly states it does not expose credentials, which is valuable safety-relevant behavior. It omits potential details like auth/error behavior, but for a simple read-only config getter this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds an essential behavioral caveat. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear read purpose, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It identifies the target, output format, and a critical data-safety behavior, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the 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, making schema coverage trivially 100% and the baseline 4. The description adds useful semantic context about the return value (a dict) and credential redaction, though no parameter descriptions are necessary.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('Backrest configuration'), listing its main components (repos, plans, global settings). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_health or list_snapshots.

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?

While it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need the config' or mention alternatives, the resource is uniquely named and unambiguous among the siblings. The context is clear enough that an agent would know when to select it over other tools.

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