get_inspection_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieves the current configuration'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the configuration doesn't exist. The presence of an output schema helps but is not leveraged in the description.

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 description is relatively concise with a two-line summary followed by parameter details. The Args format is clear but could be shortened by integrating some parameter info into the first line. Still, every sentence adds value.

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 simple getter with 3 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains all parameters and the tool's purpose. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, response structure), but the output schema fills some of that.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning: it explains project_id, app_id (with format hint 'namespace/kind/name'), and inspection_type (with examples). This compensates well for the bare schema.

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 'Get inspection configuration for an application,' specifying the verb and resource. It lists example inspection types (cpu, memory, slo_availability, slo_latency), distinguishing it from other get_* sibling 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ai_config or get_application. Given the large number of similar get_* siblings, some comparative guidance would be beneficial.

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