Get Solution Configuration Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious semantics: 'initialized' is an explicit marker stamped by apply_solution_config and NOT inferred from an active id set manually. It also explains source provenance ('db', 'sidecar', 'built-in', 'none'), including the important edge case that a repo with a valid .aicb.json sidecar but no DB row still reads initialized=true / source:sidecar.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense paragraph with deeply nested parentheticals and semicolon-chained clauses that make it hard to scan. Much of the content earns its place (no output schema exists, so return-value semantics matter), but the structure could be broken up without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: it defines the three slots, their initialized flags, the active configuration per slot, the effective test-detection profile, and the four possible source values. It also covers the sidecar edge case and prescribes the follow-up action, so an agent has everything needed to call and act on it.

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%, so the schema already documents sessionId (including that it accepts a .sln/.slnx/.slnf path) and dbPath. The description largely restates the dbPath default behavior ('omit it to use the server's default config DB'), adding little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (solution configuration status), enumerating exactly which three slots are inspected (Layer Profile, Exclude-Namespaces, Test Profile) and what 'active' means for each. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings apply_solution_config and init_solution_config, which it explicitly references as the write-side counterparts.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this on solution start') plus a concrete conditional workflow: if a slot is not initialized, offer init_solution_config + apply_solution_config. That names both the when and the alternative tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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