get_config

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It confirms the config is read from a project, but says nothing about behavior when the key is missing, what file formats are parsed, or error handling. With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering returns, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. But for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about project_path format and key lookup semantics; it only addresses key via loose examples.

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% for both required parameters. The description partially compensates for 'key' by showing example values (pyproject name, package.json name), but 'project_path' format (absolute vs relative, directory vs file) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a config value from project') and grounds it with concrete examples (pyproject name, package.json name). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling update_config by being the read side, though it never states that contrast explicitly.

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 examples convey the general use case (fetching project metadata like the pyproject or package.json name), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update_config or the file-reading siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.

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