getAssistantConfig

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is account-scoped and read-only, requires login (401 returns account_required), and explains the managed flag and runtime precedence. Also mentions SDK consumption 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 comprehensive but not overly verbose. It is structured logically with clear sections. A minor deduction for length, but every sentence contributes value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (managed, config, options, etc.), auth requirements, runtime precedence, and consumption by SDKs. Covers all essential context for a read-only 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?

Only one parameter (appPackage) with full schema coverage (100%). The description reiterates the parameter but adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads per-project assistant settings (models, voice, memory) and returns a structured response. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setAssistantConfig (change) and getGatewayUsage (usage/cost).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to view current config or discover valid option ids before recommending a change. Also explicitly states when not to use: for changing config (use setAssistantConfig) or for usage/cost (use getGatewayUsage). Includes auth prerequisite.

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