pm_config_get

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or mention authentication requirements. It is adequate for a simple read operation.

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?

Single sentence that starts with the primary action ('Read Puppet Master configuration values'), then lists key returned fields. No wasted words; front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description lists several returned fields, giving agent a sense of what to expect. It could be more complete by stating the return format (e.g., JSON object) but is adequate for a simple read tool with one optional parameter.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It lists some returned values but does not explain the 'key' parameter further. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' and resource 'Puppet Master configuration values', and lists the returned fields (pmMode, entities, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling pm_config_set which is the write counterpart.

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?

States that tool reads configuration and lists returned values. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to read config, not write', the sibling pm_config_set makes that clear. Slight room for more explicit guidance.

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