cg_config

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: reading vs updating based on parameter presence, and the ability to list all settings by omitting key. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, which it fulfills well.

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 two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail return values, but the behavior is sufficiently explained for an agent to use correctly. The sibling tools are distinct, so no further disambiguation is needed.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior: key is used to read, both key and value to update, and omitting key lists all. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Read or update Cartograph workflow defaults.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like cg_blueprint or cg_create by specifying the unique action on configuration defaults.

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 explains when to read (provide key) and when to update (provide both key and value). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names.

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