config_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a read operation (non-destructive), but does not disclose what happens if the key is missing, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a necessary condition. No redundant words, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality but omits important context like what scope options exist, how to find valid keys, or what the output looks like (though output schema exists, reducing burden). Adequate for a simple tool but could be richer.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It adds that app_name is required when scope='app', which clarifies a conditional dependency. However, it does not explain the meaning of the 'scope' enum values or what 'key' represents. Marginal improvement over bare schema.

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 that the tool reads a system or per-app config value, using precise verb 'Read' and resource 'config value'. It distinguishes from write tools like config_set, but not from other read tools like dav_get, though the resource type is different.

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 description provides a condition ('app_name required when scope='app'') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use system vs app scope, or why not to use config_set. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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