get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior — password and key fields are returned as '<set>' rather than values — which is valuable beyond the schema. However it says nothing about permissions/authentication, output size or pagination, error behavior, or explicitly that the operation is read-only and non-destructive.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core capability (read any config endpoint, three modes) front-loaded and the redaction caveat appended where it is most useful.

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 generic config pass-through tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scope and the redaction behavior. It stops short of describing result envelope shape or whether large tables are truncated/paginated, which would help an agent plan calls.

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 100%, so all five parameters (endpoint, mkey, vdom, filter, format) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the mkey idea ('one entry by mkey') without adding syntax, defaulting, or interaction rules among filter/format/vdom.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus a broad resource ('any configuration endpoint') and enumerates the three read shapes (whole settings object, full table, single entry by mkey). This clearly separates it from set_config and describe_config among its siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the three enumerated shapes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the neighboring siblings (describe_config for schema, set_config for writes, get_monitor for runtime data). The agent must infer the boundary.

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