get_subject_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the note adds maintenance status and a performance caveat. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or whether registry access is involved, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the backward-compatibility/alternative-resource note is concise and earns its place. 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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits parameter meanings, return values, and caller-facing caveats. While the subject scope and legacy status are clear, an agent would need to infer too much to invoke this tool confidently.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. 'subject' is only implicit in 'specific subject,' while 'context' and 'registry' are left entirely unexplained. An agent cannot determine meaningful parameter values or optional-parameter behavior from this definition.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get configuration settings for a specific subject.' This establishes the scope and distinguishes it from global config tools. However, it does not name sibling tools like get_global_config or get_subject_mode, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 direct usage alternative by recommending the 'subject://{name}/{context}/{subject}/config' resource for better performance and marking the tool as backward-compatibility-only. This is useful routing guidance, but it does not spell out when the tool itself should still be used or what conditions make the resource preferable beyond performance.

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