get_firebase_config

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool does not return secrets, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like whether the config is read-only or requires authentication, though the 'get' verb implies non-destructive behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No unnecessary details.

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 parameterless tool, the description captures the essence well. It specifies key fields and a safety disclaimer. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the return format or structure, or mentioning if additional Firebase fields exist. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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 schema coverage is complete. The description adds value by enumerating what the config contains (GoogleServices path, project ID), which goes beyond the empty schema. This provides meaningful semantics for the returned data.

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 it retrieves Firebase configuration, specifying key elements like GoogleServices path and project ID, and explicitly mentions absence of secrets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other types of config (e.g., ads, FMOD).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's name and domain, but it lacks recommendations or exclusions. Given the uniqueness of Firebase among siblings, the implied guidance is moderate.

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