Get Pathmark configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the tool returns—local store location and enabled optional features—which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It aligns with the read-only nature and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

A single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, low-complexity configuration getter, the description is complete: it states what the tool exposes (store location and optional features), and the annotations confirm it is safe and idempotent. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the content an agent can expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. The schema and context already cover 100% of the parameter surface, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource: the local Pathmark Memory store location and enabled optional features. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memory or get_context, which operate on memory content rather than configuration.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. It simply states the function; context for when to call it is only implied by the name 'get_config' among memory-focused siblings.

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