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. It usefully discloses that secret-bearing values are redacted server-side, which is meaningful. It does not explicitly describe read-only safety, permission requirements, or the exact response shape, leaving clear 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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action immediately. Every phrase adds useful scope or behavioral information, with no wasted text.

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?

For a simple single-parameter config read, the description covers the main action, section-vs-all behavior, and redaction. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about the return structure, but the core behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 schema already documents the optional 'section' parameter thoroughly, including examples and the 404 behavior for unknown sections. The description reinforces the omit-to-return-all behavior but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 and resource: 'Read daemon config.' It clarifies that the tool returns either one section or all sections when omitted, which is useful scope detail. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as set_config or get_app_config, 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 description implies usage by saying it reads daemon config and returns one section or all sections when omitted. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like get_app_config or set_config, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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