ps_config_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it returns real-time or cached data, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get current configuration') and adds specific details ('including active overlay and thresholds'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation. It specifies what is retrieved, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with low complexity, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description adds value by specifying what configuration details are retrieved (active overlay and thresholds), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it provides useful context without redundancy.

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 'Get' and the resource 'current configuration', specifying what it retrieves (active overlay and thresholds). It distinguishes from siblings like ps_config_set (write) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from ps_config_export or ps_config_import, which also involve configuration data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ps_config_export (which might retrieve configuration in a different format) or ps_state_get (which might retrieve state rather than configuration). The description implies usage for reading configuration but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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