get_config_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns 'detailed documentation,' leaving the agent uninformed about potential errors, read-only nature, response format, or any side effects. The name implies read-only, but that is not explicit, and no behavioral details are added beyond the minimal statement.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section adds a small semantic but overlaps with the schema; still, it remains concise without unnecessary fluff. It earns a good score but loses a point for the redundant re-listing of the parameter.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, the description lacks contextual completeness by not referencing list_available_configs for valid config_type values or explaining what a 'configuration type' is. This leaves a clear gap in the discovery workflow.

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. The Args section adds 'config_type: The config type name,' which is a minimal semantic but does not clarify where to find valid values or any format requirements. This is insufficient compensation for having no schema-level descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies configuration type.' This uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('configuration type'), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_available_configs, which lists configs, and other get_*_info tools for different resource types.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implicitly suggests it is for fetching details about a config type, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., using list_available_configs to see valid names) or exclusions. This is a clear but unstated usage context.

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