Get agent configuration as plain text (for LLM context)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the output is plain text and the authorization requirement, but does not disclose what the configuration contains, potential rate limits, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description adds modest 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key operational details. Every part is necessary and there is no superfluous 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description includes the HTTP endpoint and auth class. It could briefly mention typical content of the configuration, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly 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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 'Get', the resource 'agent configuration', the format 'plain text', and the intended use 'for LLM context'. This distinguishes it from the sibling pc_get_llms_agent_configuration_adapter_type_txt, which likely returns a different scope.

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 provides the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_llms_agent_configuration_adapter_type_txt. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions.

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