get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the API key is masked, which is a helpful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though 'returns' implies it. Could be more explicit.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and includes a key detail about masking.

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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description provides essential context: what is returned and that the API key is masked. It does not enumerate all fields of the configuration, but for a simple config retrieval, this is reasonable.

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 schema is fully covered. The description adds value by describing the return content (configuration with masked API key), which is a meaningful semantic beyond the schema.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Returns the current LMCP configuration (api_key masked).' The verb 'Returns' and resource 'LMCP configuration' are specific, and the masking note adds clarity. Among siblings like lmcp_state and lmcp_welcome, this tool 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. Since it's a simple getter with no parameters, the usage is implicit. However, it lacks explicit context such as 'Use this to inspect the current LMCP configuration before changing settings.'

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