get_effective_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states pure read semantics, no writes, how restart_required is determined, which layers are live vs require restart, and how misconfigured roles are reported inline without raising. It also discloses degradation behavior for nonexistent plan manifests.

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 longer than average, but each sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact: read-only guarantee, restart semantics, error handling, and plan_name semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into logical paragraphs, so the density is justified and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the complete absence of annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, how it errors, when restarts are needed, and how the optional parameter behaves. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 coverage is 0%, so all meaning must come from the description. The description explains plan_name's effect in detail: it layers in the plan's role_config overrides, matches get_role_config's plan_name behavior, and degrades gracefully when the manifest doesn't exist. This goes far beyond the bare schema definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only diagnostic snapshot of the pipeline's effective configuration'. It enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains (roles, env vars, ignored vars, config files), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling get_role_config by describing how plan_name behaves relative to it.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the effective resolved configuration and provenance across roles, env vars, and config files. It also explains the optional plan_name behavior and compares it to get_role_config. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this when...', but the diagnostic framing and sibling contrast provide sufficient usage context.

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