exposure_config_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly declares 'Read-only (AS-8)', details the return object ({format, path, exists, config}), and explains the behavior when the config file is missing (exists=false, built-in defaults apply). This is thorough for a getter tool.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the main purpose, the connection to exposure_slice, return values, and the missing-file edge case. No filler or redundant content.

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 return behavior and read-only nature are well covered, but the complete omission of app_id semantics is a critical gap that prevents the tool from being correctly invocable. The description is complete for purpose but incomplete for usage.

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 only parameter app_id has no schema description and is completely absent from the tool description. At 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what app_id is or how it relates to the config file. The agent cannot infer correct usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies a concrete resource ('$WILLOW_HOME/config/exposure.json'), and explains its role ('which preset governs each seed destination when exposure_slice is called without an explicit one'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling exposure_slice tool.

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?

It provides clear context for when this tool's data is relevant (when exposure_slice is called without an explicit preset), implying the agent should use this to inspect those defaults. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need to check default presets' or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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