config_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a valuable behavioral detail: secrets such as API keys and bearer tokens are masked in the output. This goes beyond the annotations and warns the agent that the response has sanitized values.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main behavioral contract first, then adds the credential-masking guarantee. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It identifies what is returned, the intended use, and the critical masking behavior, so an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret expectations.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to describe parameter behavior. The description clarifies that no input is required and that the tool operates on the currently active profile, which is sufficient context for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns the effective configuration of the active profile, which is specific and actionable. It implies a distinction from sibling tools like profile_list and profile_use, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 gives a clear intended use: 'confirm what's actually configured without ever exposing credentials.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to recognize the appropriate use case.

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