get_config_option

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

The description explicitly states it is a read operation, implying no side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about its non-destructive nature, though it does not discuss permissions or error handling.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose and gives examples efficiently.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and what input is expected, leaving little ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by providing concrete examples of valid option names ('general:gaps_in', 'decoration:rounding'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare parameter name.

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 the tool reads a Hyprland config option, using a specific verb 'Read the current value' and resource 'Hyprland config option'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_config_option' by implying a read operation.

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 provides example config options, which implicitly guide the agent on input format. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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