show_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states this is a read-only listing operation ('Show all...configurations available in the config file'), which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what the output looks like, whether it reads from a local file or remote service, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 a single focused sentence that conveys the purpose, scope ('all...in the config file'), and the integration context (usable with connect_from_config). Zero waste, appropriately front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys purpose, scope, and the relationship to connect_from_config. Minor gaps include not describing the return format or whether it reports configs from a default location.

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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earn a baseline 4. The description's reference to which configurations are shown ('that can be used with connect_from_config') adds meaningful selection context beyond what an empty schema conveys.

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 ('Show') with a clear resource ('ActiveMQ broker configurations') and explicitly ties the purpose to 'available in the config file that can be used with connect_from_config'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like connect_from_config itself, list_connections, and import_connections.

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 explicitly states the use case: retrieving broker configurations that can be used with connect_from_config. This gives the agent clear context for when to invoke it vs. the sibling connection tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tie to connect_from_config provides applicable context.

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