Get Crab-hole Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior context beyond annotations by specifying that the returned data includes both the full active TOML config and its SHA-256 revision.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: scope ('complete active'), format ('TOML'), and additional result detail ('SHA-256 revision').

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 zero-parameter, strongly annotated read-only tool, this description communicates the key facts: what is read and what is returned. It lacks an explicit output shape, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement that the configuration and its SHA-256 revision are returned.

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, so the schema is already exhaustive. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('complete active Crab-hole TOML configuration') plus the associated SHA-256 revision. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_crab_hole, list_config_backups, and crab_hole_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 description clearly establishes the usage context: it is the tool to call when you need the current, complete active configuration and its revision hash. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives, but the read-only scope is clear enough.

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