get_config_paths

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. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, such as whether it returns paths as strings or objects, if it includes error handling for missing files, or if it has any side effects like caching. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It uses clear terms like 'Get all config file paths' and lists the specific types without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of paths) and behavioral aspects, which are important for a tool that retrieves data. With no annotations to supplement, the description is minimal but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from more context on output.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all config file paths', specifying three types: user config, package default, and active. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_console_logs or get_network_logs by focusing on config files rather than logs or other data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like init_user_config or reload_settings, which might involve configs but serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether config files must exist or be initialized, or suggest alternatives like init_user_config for setup or reload_settings for updates. Without this context, users might struggle to determine the appropriate tool for their needs.

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