Get Magento Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context on top: it returns value_status (set/empty/null) and an inherited default-scope value when scoped rows are empty. It does not contradict any annotation, and it gives the agent insight into edge-case output.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, resource, and pattern; the second efficiently communicates the output behavior. Every piece of prose earns its place, and the text is compact enough for quick parsing.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return fields, and it doesn't. It covers the core behavior, the matching semantics, and the important inherited-value behavior. Minor omissions (e.g., whether multiple matches are returned, or implications of the profile parameter) are acceptable given the output schema and parameters are already documented elsewhere.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already documented in detail (e.g., pathPattern is described as 'core_config_data path pattern (SQL LIKE)' with examples, and the alias is noted). The description essentially repeats the LIKE pattern and alias without adding new parameter semantics. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Reads'), a concrete resource ('store configuration from core_config_data'), and a distinct mechanism ('path LIKE pattern'), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools. It also previews the return semantics (value_status and inherited default-scope value), so an agent knows exactly what to expect. None of the sibling names overlap with this config-read niche.

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 clearly implies when to use it (when a store configuration value is needed from core_config_data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, since there is no closely competing sibling. It also notes the LIKE pattern behavior, which helps an agent decide if this is the right tool versus an exact-match query. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' clause, so a 4 is appropriate.

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