config_get

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing what fields are included (identifiers, posting variables) and explicitly stating what is excluded (token values), plus noting the return of a rev for optimistic concurrency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the structured enumeration in parentheses is efficient and readable.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete summary of return content, including the rev field. The annotations handle the read-only hint, and the description covers the rest sufficiently.

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 100% for the single parameter clientId, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, thus no extra value.

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 the verb "Read" and specifies the resource "pendpost configuration", listing included and excluded fields clearly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like config_set by being read-only, and the detailed enumeration of identifiers, variables, and secrets provides precise scope.

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 explicitly states this is for reading configuration and includes "Read-only" at the end, making the use case clear. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like config_set, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer correct usage.

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