get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It discloses that the response is in TOML format and that parameter substitution is available, which adds value. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects, leaving gaps for a read operation with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the action, resource, format, and optional behavior efficiently.

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 single-get tool with two well-described parameters, the description covers the key aspects: what is retrieved, the output format, and the optional substitution. However, it lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral details (e.g., error handling), but the simplicity and schema richness make it largely complete.

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 schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (config_id as a UUID, parameters as a JSON string for substitution). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('Telegraf configuration') and adds the output format ('TOML') and optional parameter substitution, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_configs and get_config_details. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_configs or get_config_details. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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