get_config

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get configuration settings' without explaining behavior like whether the key parameter is optional, what happens if the key is not found, or what the return format looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns or how it behaves, but it does not. It also lacks mention of related tools or usage context. The low complexity and single parameter reduce the burden, but the description still leaves out key details about return values and optional behavior.

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 schema includes a clear description for the 'key' parameter ('Specific config key to retrieve'), and with 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 identifies the tool as a getter for configuration settings, distinguishing it from the sibling set_config. However, it is somewhat generic and could be more specific about whether it retrieves all settings or a single key, though the schema hints at that.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that set_config should be used for modifications, nor any context for when retrieving configuration is appropriate. The description is a bare statement with no situational direction.

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