config_get

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 value by disclosing the return format ('Standard dict with keys: success, message, data') and providing a Python example. It does not mention auth or failure modes, but for a zero-param read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 brief, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a helpful return-format note and short example. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, gives sample keys, and provides an invocation example, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to describe. It correctly does not attempt to invent parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return current webapp config', enumerating example contents (LLM provider, URLs, selected model). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling config_set (write operation) by implying it is the read counterpart.

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 implies usage (to retrieve configuration) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. For a simple getter, the purpose makes usage fairly evident, but explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., 'use config_set to modify') is missing.

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