get_configuration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('JSON string') but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any behavioral context beyond the return format limits the score.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args/Returns structure is clear and wastes no words, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks usage guidance and any error/edge-case context, but the operation is straightforward and the output schema covers return structure. A 3 reflects the minimal viable completeness for this simple 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the parameter (configuration_id) and states it is the IT Glue configuration ID, which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Configuration Id' title. However, it does not explain the format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, so compensation is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('configuration by ID'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_configurations or search_configurations, but the 'by ID' qualifier makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_configurations or search_configurations. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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