shell_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description serves as the only behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is safe. It does clarify that secrets are excluded, which is a useful constraint. However, it does not mention any authentication or permission requirements, which could be relevant.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and specifies the resource. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 that there are no parameters, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's function. The existence of an output schema covers return details, so the description need not elaborate. It does not mention usage context, but that is already addressed in usage_guidelines; for a simple config retrieval, this is complete enough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter syntax. The phrase 'non-secret' adds context about the output scope but does not relate to parameters. For a parameterless tool, this is adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('effective non-secret shell policy configuration'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by nature (configuration retrieval vs. execution), though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the sibling shell_execute. An agent must infer that this is for reading configuration, not executing commands. The description does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or context for selection.

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