get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior and the absence of secrets, which is valuable safety-relevant information. It does not discuss authentication or error behavior, but this is minor for a simple, parameterless reader.

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?

One tightly worded sentence carries the full semantic load: read-only, safe, runtime configuration, and no secrets. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, this description is nearly complete for the agent's needs. It conveys what the tool returns and what it explicitly excludes. Slightly more context about the source or scope of the configuration could push it to a 5.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing the description needs to explain about arguments. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description satisfies that without adding unnecessary parameter detail.

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 ('Return') and resource ('runtime configuration'), and adds meaningful scope ('without secrets'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on documents, tables, indexes, and status.

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 phrase 'runtime configuration' implies when the tool should be used, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. An agent must infer how this differs from get_document or get_index_status rather than being told.

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