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 behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get a config value.' It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what happens when a key is missing, whether configuration values can be stale, or any permission requirements.

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 extremely concise with no filler words, and the core operation is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it conveys little beyond the tool name itself, making it more under-specified than intentionally well-structured.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description does not help the agent understand missing-key behavior, valid config namespaces, or the relationship to config_list and config_set. An agent can attempt a call but lacks enough context to do so confidently and correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'key' parameter. The input schema only says Key is a required string, and the description does not explain what a valid key looks like, how it is formatted, or how to discover available keys.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get a config value.' This indicates a retrieval operation on a configuration item, and the singular 'a config value' distinguishes it from config_list, although it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 config_list, config_set, or config_delete. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the single 'key' parameter, which is weak for an agent deciding between sibling tools.

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