Get Current Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what configuration elements are included (projects, tools, contexts, modes), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this returns cached or live data, format details, or performance characteristics.

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 core action and immediately specifies what's included. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, no unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what configuration elements are returned, which complements the output schema. For a simple status-checking tool, this provides adequate context, though it could benefit from mentioning when this information is most useful.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description correctly indicates this tool takes no parameters ('Print the current configuration' implies no inputs needed), which aligns perfectly with the empty schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 'Print' and the resource 'current configuration of the agent', specifying what information is included (active/available projects, tools, contexts, modes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'get_symbols_overview' by focusing on overall agent configuration rather than specific components. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or suggest when this tool is appropriate versus other configuration or status-checking tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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