get_config_ui_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavior such as error responses or whether the config is cached. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 minimal and front-loaded: 'Read UiConfig' followed by the endpoint and argument. Every sentence is informative and there is no extraneous content. For a simple one-parameter get-by-id tool, this is an ideal size.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present, annotations cover safety). The description, combined with the path and parameter, is minimally sufficient but lacks clarity about the UiConfig resource itself and any failure behavior. Given the low complexity accrues, a score of 3 reflects that the essential facts are present but no extra context is provided.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter. It only states 'id: Path parameter', which conveys the parameter location but not its meaning or permissible values. It does not mention that id identifies the UiConfig resource, leaving an agent to infer this from the tool name.

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 'Read UiConfig' with the explicit endpoint GET /api/v3/config/ui/{id}, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_config_ui (which lists) and update_config_ui_by_id (which updates), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'by_id' suffix and path parameter imply it is for fetching a single UI config, but the description does not state when to prefer it over list_config_ui or how it differs from other get_*_by_id tools.

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