Get Asset Forge Config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the redaction behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any required permissions, error conditions, or the return format. While adequate for a simple tool, it could be more transparent about what the configuration includes.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, earning every character.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it returns the config with secrets redacted. It does not describe the output format, but that is not strictly required. For a tool of this simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) but also doesn't introduce confusion. It appropriately relies on the schema for parameter information.

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 states the action ('Return'), the specific resource ('active Cocos Asset Forge MCP configuration'), and a notable behavioral trait ('with secrets redacted'). It distinctly separates this tool from its sibling generation/adaptation tools, which serve entirely different purposes.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of being a configuration retrieval tool implicitly differentiates it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, which is acceptable for a simple getter but still lacks explicit guidance.

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