apex_get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that credentials are redacted — a genuinely useful safety note, but far from complete. Nothing states that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether the returned structure is large, or what each section contains.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the section list is front-loaded ahead of the redaction caveat. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than pure economy.

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 and no annotations mean the description must explain the return shape and the meaning of each section, and it does neither. For a tool whose only decision point is picking a section, leaving all nine section names undefined is a material gap.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, so the description's enumeration of valid values (oconf, iconf, pconf, mconf, dconf, clock, misc, season, cal) is the only source of accepted inputs. However, it attaches no meaning to any of these opaque abbreviations, so an agent still cannot map a section name to the data it holds.

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?

"One config section" plus an enumeration of valid sections conveys that this reads configuration data, but the verb is left implicit and the description never says what a 'config section' actually returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like apex_get_probes or apex_power_summary only by the parameter list, not by an explicit statement of scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many sibling apex_get_* tools, and no guidance on which of the nine sections an agent should request for a given need. The section list names options but gives no criteria for choosing among them.

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