get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, and the enumerated contents tell the agent what data comes back, but there is no statement about whether license/configuration data is sensitive or whether any permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the resource, and the three content categories with no filler. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive. The one meaningful gap is the absence of any routing cue versus the several sibling diagnostic/state tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (the current LMCP configuration) and enumerates what it contains: connected integrations, feature flags, license status. This is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like lmcp_state, lmcp_doctor, or permissions_status, which likely report overlapping configuration/health information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of lmcp_state, lmcp_doctor, lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics, or permissions_status. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the enumerated fields.

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