get_config_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description does not disclose what is returned, whether it reads from disk, or whether any auth/environment setup is required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is minimal rather than rich.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks any sense of what 'configuration information' contains or its format. Adequate minimum viability but leaves a real gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Espanso configuration information'), so the agent knows it's a read of config data. However, it doesn't specify what configuration information (paths, match settings, version), and the siblings are all match/documentation tools, so there's no explicit differentiation need but also no added specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools (list_matches, list_match_files, etc.). The description does not state prerequisites, expected context, or exclusions.

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