get_config_ui_by_id

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by saying 'Read' and 'GET', but it adds no further behavioral context such as error handling, authentication requirements, or absence/presence of side effects.

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 tightly structured with a purpose statement first, then the endpoint, then the argument list. There is no filler or redundant prose; every line contributes useful information.

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-by-id tool with one integer path parameter, an output schema, and thorough safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it gives the HTTP method, endpoint, and parameter location. The main gap is the implicit domain meaning of 'id', which is recoverable from the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the id parameter. It only says 'id: Path parameter', which is already visible from the URL template, and does not explain what the id represents, what values are valid, or what the id refers to in the UiConfig resource.

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 states a clear verb-object pair ('Read UiConfig') and includes the exact GET endpoint, so an agent can tell this is a read operation for UI configuration by id. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling getters like get_config_host_by_id or list_config_ui, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_config_ui, get_config_development_by_id, or get_config_host_by_id. It only declares the operation and endpoint, leaving all selection criteria to be inferred from the tool name.

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