Get project config

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context that the data is a 'snapshot' from the 'local agent', but does not disclose return format, param behavior, or other operational details. This modest addition beyond annotations merits a mid-range score.

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 sentence with no filler words, front-loading the action and object. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without 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 tool with no output schema and unannotated optional parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It lacks information about parameter usage, return values, and how this snapshot relates to editing operations, making it incomplete for agents.

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%, and the description does not explain either root_path or project_id. Both parameters are optional, but their purpose and precedence are entirely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies the resource ('editable project config snapshot') and source ('local agent'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like probe_project_config, which may also read config, limiting differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as probe_project_config or apply_config_change. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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