Effective Ansible config

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: secrets (galaxy tokens, passwords) are always redacted, and settings the server overrides for safety are flagged — both material to interpreting the result.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core output contract (effective config plus origins) is front-loaded. Slightly clause-heavy but each clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape — and it does: settings with origins, redaction of secrets, and safety-override flags. It covers what an agent needs to interpret results, though it omits any note on pagination/truncation behavior tied to `limit`.

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 100%, so `all`, `dir`, `limit`, and `filter` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about these parameters (e.g. how `filter` interacts with `all`), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: the effective Ansible configuration for a directory, mapped to `ansible-config dump`, with per-setting origin attribution. That is far more precise than a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like `ansible_project_info`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to know which config values are in effect and where they come from. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or naming of an alternative sibling for related questions (e.g. project info).

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