get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the return is the set of changeable settings plus their current values, but says nothing about auth requirements, session state, or whether values are defaults vs. user-modified. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence points to authoritative documentation for per-setting semantics. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile; the description also supplies the purpose and an authoritative reference for individual settings. The remaining gap is that it does not mention any session/auth prerequisite, which is mildly relevant given the `sign_in` and `check_session` siblings.

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; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter information is missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the settings... and their values') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from its write counterpart by naming `update_config`. An agent can immediately tell this is the read half of a config read/write pair without inspecting any schema.

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: naming `update_config` signals this is the read counterpart, so an agent can infer it should call this to inspect config before mutating. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing to sign in first, given the `sign_in`/`check_session` siblings), and no stated exclusions.

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