Config Show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'view' implies a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if parameters are omitted (e.g., showing all values). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a configuration tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances like how 'scope' and 'scopeId' interact, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'path' as optional configuration path, 'scope' as configuration scope). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

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 the verb ('view') and resource ('Magento 2 system configuration values'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'config-set' or 'config-store-get', which would require a more specific scope or comparison.

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 such as 'config-set' for setting values or 'config-store-get' for store-specific configurations. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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