get_config_naming_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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Read' and the HTTP GET method, both of which are already implied by the annotations and tool name. No contradiction 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The endpoint adds concrete API detail, though it is somewhat redundant with the tool name. There is no filler or unnecessary prose.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, so an extensive description is not essential. However, it lacks any mention of how to find a valid id, its relationship to list_config_naming, or potential error conditions. It is adequate for a basic fetch but leaves some gaps for an agent without prior domain knowledge.

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's 'Args: id: Path parameter' is the only added parameter context. It clarifies the location of id but does not explain what the id identifies, its valid values, or its relationship to NamingConfig. This is minimal 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 states 'Read NamingConfig' and gives the exact GET endpoint, making the action and resource clear. It does not explicitly contrast with list_config_naming or update_config_naming_by_id, but the '/{id}' path and by_id name make the singular read intent evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_config_naming or update_config_naming_by_id. It does not mention prerequisites, such as how to obtain a valid id, or any conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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