kanbn_get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it returns null when no separate config file exists. This is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether the config is present. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a get operation the main ambiguity (the null case) is covered.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core function and packs in the behavioral null clause without waste. It earns every word, though it could have added a phrase about the optional path parameter without much cost.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential ambiguity (null return) well. The sibling kanbn_save_config hints at a read/write pair but the description still stands on its own. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which keeps it at the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) with a clear resource (Kanbn config) and adds the distinguishing null-return behavior. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like kanbn_save_config and kanbn_get_action_rules, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 conveys what to expect (the config or null when no file exists) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling kanbn_save_config or other config-related tools. It is the sibling kanbn_save_config that the agent might confuse it with; a short note about it being the read counterpart would help. The null-return clause gives some contextual signal about when a config file is absent.

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