Config Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what no-args returns (every setting, one line each, grouped), what key mode returns (value, source among settings file/env var/default, accepted values, and restart semantics), and what group mode returns. It never explicitly states that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, but the 'get' framing and contrast with config_set make that clear in practice.

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?

It front-loads the modes correctly and every sentence contributes information, but the opening inventory of settings and the informal 'ismail's settings' framing are slightly verbose. The prose is dense and list-like rather than elegant, though still readable and free of filler.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers all three modes, the source-of-value and restart metadata, and sibling routing. It does not explicitly state whether key and group can be combined or that they are mutually exclusive, which is the one small gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives example key values ('songs', 'ffmpeg', 'live.trim_db') including dotted nesting, example group values ('paths', 'tools', 'live'), and explains the behavior of each mode including the no-argument default. It adds substantial meaning the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieving settings) and immediately enumerates its three modes, no-args, key, and group, with concrete examples like 'live.trim_db' and 'paths'. It is clearly distinguishable from config_set and config_unset, which it names and contrasts.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it ('when you need to know where songs are saved, which ffmpeg or Blender ismail uses, or why a folder is where it is') and clarifies the division of labor with config_set ('changes one') and config_unset ('returns one to its default'). That is explicit when-to-use plus alternatives.

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