agy_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; 'Read' conveys a non-mutating operation and the return format is given. However, it does not mention authentication needs, whether the config may contain sensitive material, or any other side effects or constraints.

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 short sections: a clear purpose sentence and a structured return format. No filler or repeated schema information.

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 simple getter with no required parameters, the purpose and return format are sufficient to invoke it. However, the undocumented ctx parameter and lack of detail about what 'full Antigravity configuration' contains leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the correct tool.

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 input schema provides one optional ctx parameter with no type or description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention ctx at all, so the agent receives no meaningful parameter guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full Antigravity configuration'), and the read/write contrast with sibling agy_set_config makes its role immediately distinguishable.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the entire configuration, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as agy_set_config. The usage context is clear but no routing guidance is provided.

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