cg_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the dual read/update behavior and the effect of omitting the key. It does not describe side effects or authorization, but for a config tool this is acceptable. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and parameter usage. There are no redundant or filler words; every part is necessary and informative.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains the read/update duality and how to use parameters. It could mention that the key is an enum (but that is in schema) and it does not detail return values, but for a simple config tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds meaningful usage context: 'provide key to read… provide both to update.' This clarifies the relationship between parameters beyond their individual descriptions. It enhances semantic understanding.

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 that the tool reads or updates Cartograph workflow defaults, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cg_architect or cg_blueprint which handle other aspects. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 read (provide only key) versus update (provide both key and value). It also implies listing all settings when key is omitted, thanks to the schema. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is clear enough.

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