get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral value: it discloses that password hashes and the TOTP secret are redacted, and that detailed=true enriches the payload. It still omits auth/permission requirements for reading settings.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the element semantics, then the detailed flag and redaction note. No filler; each sentence adds something the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and both parameters are covered with examples plus an explicit note on redaction. Missing only an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement and any auth prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that element narrows to a section or key with three concrete path examples, and that detailed adds descriptions, allowed values, and defaults. Format details (whether element is dot-path or object) remain somewhat ambiguous.

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 Pi-hole settings') that separates it from the stats/history siblings. It does not explicitly name update_config/add_config_item as the write-side alternatives, so the read-vs-write boundary is left implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied through the element examples ('dns', 'dns.upstreams', 'dhcp') and the effect of detailed=true, which tells the agent how to widen or narrow a read. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. pointing at update_config for modifications.

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