get_global_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only reveals that the tool is legacy ('maintained for backward compatibility') and comparatively slower. It doesn't disclose side effects, response shape, error behavior, or permission requirements, which matters for a tool positioned against a recommended replacement.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded, and the deprecation note earns its place by naming the preferred alternative and the reason. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to support confident invocation. It omits response format, parameter semantics, and the conditions under which the tool is preferable to the suggested resource, which is especially costly given the ~27 sibling registry tools competing for selection.

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%, and the description mentions neither the 'context' nor 'registry' parameters, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema. The parameter names hint at their domain meaning, but the agent gets no guidance on valid values, how the parameters combine, or whether one takes precedence.

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 and resource ('Get global configuration settings') that makes the tool's function immediately clear. The backward-compatibility note and the pointer to the 'registry://{name}/config' resource help position it relative to the large sibling cluster, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like get_subject_config or get_registry_info.

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 NOTE gives explicit guidance to prefer the 'registry://{name}/config' resource instead, with a concrete reason (better performance), establishing a clear when-not-to-use condition with a named alternative. However, it never states the conditions under which this tool should be chosen over the resource, leaving that inference to the agent.

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