get_manager_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by noting it works before a snapshot is loaded and does not change saved state, reinforcing the read-only nature and providing operational context beyond the annotations. It doesn't go deeper into performance or edge cases, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 four sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a list of returned content, a behavioral note, and a usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 (as indicated by the context signal), the description need not detail the return structure. It covers the essential operational details: what it returns, when it can be used, and that it does not modify state. The explicit tie to update_manager_config provides the necessary workflow context. No missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description adds no irrelevant detail. It fully satisfies the parameter-semantics requirement by having no parameters to explain.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read the full current configuration and its config_revision'), then enumerates the returned content (strategies, automation presets, per-action modes, pause state, user limits). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_manager_config, which is a write operation, by emphasizing it reads and does not change state.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool as the starting configuration for update_manager_config to preserve existing settings, and states it works before a snapshot is loaded. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and directly points to the complementary sibling, leaving no ambiguity about its role in a read-before-write workflow.

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