lc_fetch_config

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

The description labels this as a fetch operation, implying read-only, but the presence of sync_* parameters (e.g., sync_yara, sync_exfil) raises ambiguity about potential side effects. No annotations are present, so the description fails to clarify whether setting these flags causes mutations.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it sacrifices critical information. It does not adequately describe the tool's functionality given the complexity of 11 parameters.

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?

The description is severely incomplete. It lacks details about return values, parameter usage, behavioral nuances (especially regarding sync flags), and how it differs from other configuration-related tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not mention any of the 11 parameters, including the required 'oid'. It provides no insight into the purpose or expected format of the parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema titles.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('org IaC configuration'), but the term 'IaC configuration' is somewhat domain-specific and could be ambiguous. The phrase 'through ext-infrastructure' adds context but doesn't fully distinguish from similar getter tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_get_org_config_value or lc_preview_push_config. There is no mention of prerequisites, or when to avoid using it.

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