config_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool is read-only and discloses a meaningful security behavior: values for keys matching pass/secret/token/key/credential are masked. It does not explain what 'visible' means regarding permissions or what happens if a requested key is absent, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three short sentences. The read-only constraint is front-loaded, followed by the main behavior and the masking exception, with no wasted wording.

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 simple read-only getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: key-based lookup, list-all fallback, and secret masking. It could be slightly more complete by defining visibility or missing-key behavior, but it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the description must compensate. It explains that the single optional parameter selects a property by key and that omitting it returns all visible keys, adding essential meaning beyond the bare string type in the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return a configuration property by key.' It also clarifies the omitted-key behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, but the configuration domain is clearly separate from the listed siblings such as logs_tail and cronjob.

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 states the two operational modes: pass a key for one property, or omit it to list all visible keys. This gives clear usage context, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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