get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool excludes sensitive fields (e.g., serviceAccountPath), which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies the configs are in-memory, though it could further clarify read-only behavior or potential performance impacts. The disclosure is sufficient to avoid misuse.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose and a key exclusion, and the second sentence provides an alternative use case. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: 'all in-memory project configs (excluding sensitive fields)'. It also gives a specific use case (finding projectId values) and provides alternatives. For a parameterless read-only tool, this is complete and actionable.

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?

There are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the tool returns (all configs, excluding sensitive fields) and its purpose (finding projectId values). This enriches the semantic understanding, earning a baseline-adjusted score of 4.

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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('in-memory project configs'), and specifies that it excludes sensitive fields like serviceAccountPath. It also provides a distinct use case: finding available projectId values. This differentiates it from siblings such as create_config and reload_config.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use an alternative: 'If hasPaths is true, use firestore_read list_paths for path templates.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and provides a sibling alternative, which is excellent usage guidance.

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