gateway_factory_project_get_runtime_config

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and 'Return' aligns with that. The description adds modest context by mentioning 'normalized' output and the work_id preference, but it does not disclose fallback behavior, identifier precedence, or side effects beyond what annotations already imply.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon clause is terse but purposeful, though it could be more clearly structured.

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 five optional parameters and no schema-level descriptions, this is under-specified. It does not explain how to select among the identifiers, what tracker_queue or allow_queue_fallback mean, or what 'normalized' runtime config entails. The output schema covers return shape but not invocation semantics.

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 needed to clarify all five parameters. It only addresses work_id ('prefer work_id for queued Work Contracts'); issue_id, project_id, tracker_queue, and allow_queue_fallback remain effectively unexplained.

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 action and resource: 'Return normalized factory runtime config.' The added clause about preferring work_id for queued Work Contracts provides a useful scoping hint. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling factory/read tools, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gateway_factory_projects_discover or gateway_factory_project_resolve_by_issue. The 'prefer work_id for queued Work Contracts' clause is a parameter-preference hint, not tool-selection guidance.

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