mcp_config_read

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the `agent` block is computed live on every read and not stored, which is real added context. It does not state auth requirements, side effects, or whether other groups are persisted, but for a read-only tool the risk surface is small.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated groups following. No filler, though the nested parenthetical groupings make it slightly heavy to parse.

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 read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the config groups the caller receives and clarifying that the agent block is dynamically computed. Only the `agent` parameter's expected value remains unspecified.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies `agent` selects whose configuration is read ('Read `agent`'s global application configuration'), which adds some meaning, but does not define the parameter's expected form or identifier source.

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 ('Read') and resource (the agent's global application configuration) and enumerates the groups returned (notifications, bridges, settings, sensors, gpios). This is clear, but it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (config_load/config_write), so the agent must infer the read/write/load distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance is given versus config_load or config_write, and no prerequisites or context for calling a read are stated. The verb implies retrieval, but nothing routes the agent among the sibling config tools.

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