goclaw_config_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for getting configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current GoClaw gateway configuration') and adds optional functionality ('or a specific section') without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output expectations. For a read operation with no annotations, more information on permissions or response format would improve completeness.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It mentions 'a specific section' which aligns with the 'section' parameter in the schema, but the schema already has 100% description coverage (e.g., 'Config section (e.g. gateway, agents, tools, channels)'). The description doesn't provide additional details like default behavior when no section is specified or examples of valid sections beyond what's implied.

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's purpose: 'Get current GoClaw gateway configuration (or a specific section)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('GoClaw gateway configuration'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_config_apply' or 'goclaw_config_patch', which are write operations, though the 'Get' verb implies read-only distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving 'a specific section' but doesn't clarify when to use this versus other config-related tools (e.g., 'goclaw_config_apply' for applying changes) or other read tools (e.g., 'goclaw_status' for status checks). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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