get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation that returns the full configuration, which is sufficient for a simple getter. It does not mention authentication or performance, but these are not necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose and content without repetition. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second elaborates on what is included. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (no params), has an output schema, and the description lists the main config components. Given the output schema covers return values, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0 parameters and an empty schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. It correctly focuses on the returned resource.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'full Frigate configuration', listing contents (cameras, detectors, objects, recording, snapshots). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_config_schema (which returns the schema) and save_config (which writes).

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 when to use this tool: when you need the current running configuration. It contrasts with siblings by mentioning 'running config' but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Clear context but no explicit 'use this instead of...'.

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