Get agent config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no note on what a missing config returns, no error behavior, no scoping by org/project. With the lower bar set by annotations, this still earns only a minimal score.

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?

Three words is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said. Compare the LOW calibration example "Process", which scores 2 for the same reason.

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 three-parameter, fully-required retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotation nuance beyond safety flags, the description should at least identify what an agent config is and that it is fetched within an org/project scope. None of that is present, leaving the definition incomplete.

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%: three required parameters (agentConfigID, orgID, projectID) carry only regex patterns, with no prose explaining their meaning or how they relate. The description does not compensate at all, so an agent gains no semantic information about these IDs from either source.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like configs_create (for creating a config) or agents_get (for retrieving the related agent). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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