Get Current Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context by specifying what configuration components are included (projects, tools, contexts, modes), which isn't inferable from annotations alone. However, it doesn't mention output format details or potential limitations.

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 action ('Print the current configuration') and then enumerates included components. Every word adds value with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, non-destructive), the description fully covers its purpose and scope. With annotations providing safety context and an output schema existing (so return values needn't be described), the description is complete for this low-complexity tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, avoiding unnecessary detail while clearly indicating the tool operates without inputs.

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 specific action ('Print') and the exact resource ('current configuration of the agent'), listing all included components (active/available projects, tools, contexts, modes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_symbols_overview' or 'list_memories' by focusing on overall agent configuration rather than specific data subsets.

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 when needing to inspect the agent's configuration state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'check_onboarding_performed' or 'switch_modes'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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