omnifocus_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; the word 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval and 'current' suggests no historical state. It doesn't disclose return shape, any configuration scope, or side-effect potential, but for a zero-parameter getter this is minimally adequate.

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?

One short sentence contains the entire semantic payload with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded.

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 parameterless getter, invocation is obvious, but with no output schema the description should state what the returned configuration contains or the response format. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret the result.

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 no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but there is nothing to document.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current configuration settings'), and the config resource distinguishes it from task/project siblings. However, it doesn't spell out what settings are covered or how it differs from set_config beyond the get/set pairing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. An agent can infer this is the read counterpart to omnifocus_set_config only from the sibling list, but the description itself gives no usage context or exclusions.

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