get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get,' indicating a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or performance characteristics, which could be useful for an agent. This is adequate but minimal for a simple read tool.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool is very simple with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully captures its purpose and behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has no parameters (0), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get current LMCP configuration' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (current LMCP configuration). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool directly relates to LMCP configuration (e.g., 'lmcp_state' is 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?

The tool is a simple getter with no parameters, making its usage self-evident. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to alternatives. Given the lack of parameter complexity, it provides clear context for typical use.

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