get_config

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 still adds useful behavior: the call returns the snippet's content, and an unknown snippet yields a 404 rather than an empty result — a distinction an agent needs when deciding how to react to a miss.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the discovery pointer. No filler and nothing redundant with the structured fields.

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 single-resource read-only getter with fully documented parameters, the description covers identification, returned content, and the not-found case. With no output schema, a brief note on the response shape (e.g. the content field name) would close the last 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the accepted config types and the 'omit or global' rule for service, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the keying dimensions ('by service, type and name') without adding format or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read one custom config snippet with its content', and scopes it by service, type and name. The singular 'one ... snippet' distinguishes it from list_configs and from get_global_config without needing to open either schema.

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?

Names list_configs explicitly as the way to discover snippet identifiers, which is the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g. that global configuration retrieval belongs to get_global_config.

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