get_portfolio_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the fallback to config/portfolio.example.yaml, the `is_example` flag, the expectation to warn the user, and the rule never to invent numbers. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 appropriately sized: three sentences, with the core function front-loaded. The fallback caveat is verbose but necessary; it earns its place because misusing example data would be a serious error.

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 description covers the source file, fallback behavior, and a critical safety rule, which are the most important runtime aspects. It is incomplete, though, because the `path` parameter is undocumented and no output schema exists to clarify the return shape.

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 has one optional `path` parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions `path` at all. The agent receives no guidance on what the parameter does, whether it overrides the default file, or what values are acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and points to a concrete resource ('config/portfolio.yaml'), then enumerates exactly what is loaded: targets, fees, risk_limits, and rebalancing rules. This makes the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishes it from the portfolio-analysis siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever these config values are needed) and gives a clear caveat about the example-file fallback. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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