get_config_development_by_id

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path, which are not in annotations, but does not disclose potential behaviors like not-found errors, permission requirements, or response shape. Given the rich annotations, this level of added context is adequate but not outstanding.

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 compact: one primary sentence, the endpoint, and a one-line parameter note. Every component is necessary, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy earns a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required integer parameter), the presence of annotations covering safety, and an output schema that defines the return value, the description is almost complete. It lacks only a brief usage-oriented context (e.g., 'Use list_config_development to find IDs'), but the existing combination of name, description, and schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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 only states 'id: Path parameter', which adds the fact that the id is a path parameter (not just a named field) but provides no semantic meaning about what the id represents or what values are valid. The tool name implies it's the DevelopmentConfig's ID, but the description does not explicitly clarify that. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema description.

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 opens with 'Read DevelopmentConfig', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from update_config_development_by_id and the other get_config_*_by_id siblings. The HTTP GET path reinforces the 'read by ID' purpose. An agent can unambiguously tell what this tool does.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_config_development or other get_*_by_id tools. The description only implies usage through the name and endpoint, but does not state 'use this to fetch a single config by id' or direct the agent to list tools for enumeration. This is a minimal implication, not explicit guidance.

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