get_agent_runtime_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is an 'internal client configuration tool', implying access restrictions. It also describes the return content. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error cases, or whether it modifies state (though 'returns' implies read-only).

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 two sentences long. The first sentence ('Internal client configuration tool') is slightly redundant with the tool name but adds context about intended audience. The second sentence provides the valuable detail. Overall efficient but could be tightened.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is complete. It effectively describes the purpose and return content (routing, prompt, rewrite, continuation rules) without leaving gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 it returns declarative agent routing, prompt, rewrite, and continuation rules. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (agent runtime config). This differentiates it from sibling tools which are focused on courses, users, and cache.

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 does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like get_cache_status. Given 18 siblings, explicit usage direction is missing.

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