tempo_get_global_configuration

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Retrieve' is consistent with that. It adds the scoping cue that the response covers global configuration rather than a project- or user-specific resource, but it does not disclose response format, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits. With annotations present, this is an adequate but minimal addition.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter, though it omits usage guidance that could have been included without bloating it.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but not misleading. It states the resource and read-only nature, but it does not hint at the shape of the returned configuration or indicate that the view parameter affects the response. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description itself leaves the context sparse.

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 only parameter, 'view', is fully documented in the input schema with detailed semantics about compact/full response shapes and field projection. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the schema to carry the weight.

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 states a clear action ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('global Tempo configuration settings'). No sibling tool targets global configuration, so an agent can distinguish it from the list. However, it does not elaborate on which settings are included, making it slightly vaguer than a fully specified purpose.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the only global-configuration tool, nor does it indicate any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent must rely solely on the name to infer usage.

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