get_config_with_inline_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral detail like 'inline change markers' and 'node may be an exact name or a unique partial name,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose read-only implications, error behavior, or what happens with invalid reference versions, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary functionality and free of unnecessary detail. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 the output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description provides enough context for selecting and invoking the tool. It covers the main behavior and node matching but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only partially restates the node parameter's matching behavior already documented in the schema, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool returns the complete current configuration with inline change markers relative to a reference version, using a specific verb and resource. It conveys the core function but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_diff_between_versions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage context is implied: when you need the current config with inline diff against a reference version. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_diff_between_versions or prepare_config, and no exclusion criteria.

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