get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes output content and does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The name 'get' implies safety, yet the description itself never states it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then enumerating the exact layers returned. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple, has a full output schema, and fully documented optional parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, without annotations or usage guidance, the definition lacks safety context and alternative-routing information, leaving modest gaps.

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 input schema documents both branch and project with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning configuration scope; it does not clarify how branch or project affect the layered output.

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 identifies the resource (project configuration) and specifies the layered output: CLI flags, global spec, repo override, and effective result. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_config. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'reads', relying on the tool name for the action.

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 clear context that this tool returns a project's configuration layers, implying it is used when configuration is needed. It does not, however, name alternatives like set_config or state when not to use the tool, leaving the choice to inference.

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