Hermes config summary

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses redaction behavior ('redacting secret values') and env presence-only reporting. This explains privacy/safety behavior the annotations alone cannot convey, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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?

One well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the redaction behavior as a modifier. Zero wasted words. Could arguably be a 5, but it reads as one long sentence rather than being broken into scannable chunks.

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations, 100% param coverage, and an output schema present, the description's job is lighter. It adequately covers the read semantics, redaction behavior, and MCP transport metadata focus. An output schema exists so return format doesn't need to be described. Complete enough for an optional-param inspection 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the three parameters (home, profile, toolkit_root) are already well described with constraints (patterns, allowed roots). The description mentions 'redacting secret values and reporting env presence only' but doesn't add param-specific semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 uses a specific compound verb-noun phrase ('Read Hermes config shape and MCP server transport metadata') that clearly identifies the resource and scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'config summary' is itself distinctive among many config/summary-related siblings like hermes_config_patch_apply and hermes_config_compare_surfaces.

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 implies this is a read-only inspection surface (summarizing config shape), which contrasts it from write-oriented siblings like config_patch_apply. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool vs the several other overview/status tools (hermes_status_overview, hermes_gateway_status, hermes_toolkit_info), leaving the agent to infer the differentiation.

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