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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific configuration settings are returned. The backward compatibility note is useful context, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words. The NOTE format effectively highlights important information without being verbose.

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?

Given that this is a read operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it provides excellent usage guidance, it lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. For a configuration retrieval tool, the agent needs to know what 'global configuration settings' includes and how parameters affect the results, which are missing.

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 description provides no information about the 2 parameters (context and registry), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, how they affect the operation, or whether they're required. With low schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, this fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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's purpose with 'Get global configuration settings' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('global configuration settings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_global_config' by indicating it's a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other configuration-related tools like 'get_subject_config' or 'get_default_registry'.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Consider using the 'registry://{name}/config' resource instead for better performance.' It also indicates this is 'maintained for backward compatibility,' which helps the agent understand this is a legacy option. This is exactly the type of explicit alternative guidance that warrants a 5.

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