config

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds context like 'update setting' for set and 'find Godot binary path' for detect_godot, which is helpful but does not go beyond the existing annotation coverage significantly.

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?

Very concise: one line for purpose, then a compact list of actions with parameter hints. No wasted words, well structured for quick scanning.

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 presence of an output schema (unknown content) and 100% input schema coverage, the description covers all actions and their parameters. However, it could mention the output format or return values for actions like 'status' or 'check'.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the role of each action and required params (e.g., '(key, value): update setting'), which clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 is for 'Server configuration and environment' and lists specific actions (status, set, detect_godot, check). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, though the name 'config' is generic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., project, scripts). The description lists actions but does not provide criteria for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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