config_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by stating the call returns the snippet's content (not just metadata), which is exactly what distinguishes it from the list sibling.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action and keying front-loaded and the alternative pointer trailing. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only single-resource getter with fully documented params and annotations covering safety, the only real gap is not-found/error behavior. Since no output schema exists, the brief mention that content is returned is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% — type enumerations, name format and the 'global' service convention are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the keying fields, adding no syntax or default behavior of its own.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read one custom config snippet with its content' keyed by service, type and name. It implicitly separates itself from global_config_read by saying 'custom config snippet', though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes discovery to configs_list ('Use configs_list to find snippets'), giving the agent a clear alternative for lookup vs. direct read. No explicit when-not conditions, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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