Get Service Config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are filtered to non-default values by default, meaning an agent may need to flip only_non_default to see the full config. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether sensitive values are masked, or whether the read is safe/idempotent.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the tool's purpose leads ahead of the filtering caveat. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, which is a different problem than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the parameters are largely self-describing. What is missing for a cluster-config read tool is any note on scoping (must the service belong to the given cluster?) and on sensitivity/permissions of returned config values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of only_non_default (default-true filtering to changed settings), which is the least obvious parameter, but leaves cluster and service entirely to their names, and doesn't clarify whether only_non_default=false returns the merged effective config or the raw defaults.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it retrieves the configuration of a service, scoped by cluster and service. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_service (service identity/status) and get_role_config_groups (role-level config), though the description never names those alternatives to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions: nothing says to use this rather than get_service, list_services, or get_role_config_groups when hunting for configuration. The only guidance offered ('by default shows only what changed vs default') is about output filtering, not about selecting this tool.

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