get_config

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that config_path can be relative to the config dir or absolute. However, it does not describe what happens on a missing/invalid file, whether the YAML is parsed, or any other runtime behavior; the output schema may cover some of this.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then gives a single focused parameter explanation. There is no filler, repetition of schema metadata, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, this is largely complete: the resource, file type, and path resolution rule are all stated. The main gaps are the undefined 'config dir' and the lack of any usage/alternative guidance, but the overall complexity is low enough that these are not critical.

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 only defines config_path as a required string with no description. The description adds crucial meaning: it is a path to a YAML config file, and it may be relative to the config dir or absolute. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs to call the tool correctly, though 'config dir' itself is not defined.

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 first sentence names the exact operation and resource: 'Read a YAML training configuration file.' This is a specific verb + resource pair and naturally distinguishes get_config from siblings like update_config, which modifies, and force_training, which starts training.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no related tools to consult. The only usage signal is implied by the word 'Read' and the tool name itself.

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