config_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool exposes effective configuration values, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or mention error or side-effect behavior. This is only minimal behavioral context.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. The key idea ('current settings / effective config') is front-loaded, and the listed examples add substance without unnecessary length.

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 config retrieval tool, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and sample contents. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the response format and full key set unspecified, and 'and so on' is vague. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already 4. The description adds useful context by naming the config categories the result will contain, helping an agent anticipate the returned data beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies a specific resource ('current settings / effective config') and lists concrete content areas such as embedder, search.backend, bin_dir, and books. It is clear this tool returns configuration, though it relies on the tool name to imply the read action and does not explicitly differentiate from config_set.

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 phrase 'current settings' implies this is the read-oriented counterpart to config_set, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of config_set as the write path.

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