Read a configuration profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the returned config is an exact snapshot and that passwords are redacted unless requested, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention error conditions or authorization, but the essential behavior is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then adding use cases and redaction behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description provides purpose, use cases, and a key behavioral caveat (password redaction), while the parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema and the return behavior is covered by the output schema. The description is compact yet complete for this tool's complexity.

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 four parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds only the redaction note tied to include_secrets, but overall the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Return a config file exactly as it was when the snapshot was taken.' It clearly distinguishes this from current-state reads by emphasizing the snapshot aspect and gives concrete use cases like seeing a past setting or recovering a lost value.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to see what a setting used to be, or to recover a value that was changed or lost,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to infer when this historical read is appropriate.

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