config_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it discloses 'Reads local config only — makes no network calls', which tells the agent this is a side-effect-free local read with no auth/network prerequisites. It also enumerates the returned fields. It stops short of stating whether anything is cached or mutated locally, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then usage routing, then a behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the response shape for both profiles (name, org id, auth method, alias, platform) and platforms (URLs, billing account, login status). Combined with the usage routing and the no-network disclosure, an agent has everything required to call it 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates.

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 ('Show the local CLI configuration') and precisely delineates scope: all saved project profiles and platform logins plus which is active. An agent can distinguish it from config_use, config_remove, and logout without opening the 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?

Explicitly names what to use it for: discovering profile names for 'config_use', 'config_remove', or 'logout', and checking which project the 'cli' tool targets. That is concrete when-to-use routing plus named alternatives.

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