get_data_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned (formulas, output values, detection dates) but says nothing about the 'current session' context—what defines the session, whether data reflects live state or a snapshot, whether the call can fail under certain conditions, or the structure of the response. For an annotation-less getter, the description offers only the minimum behavioral surface.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration of contained elements adds value without excess. Ideal length for what is a simple no-parameter getter tool.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is mostly adequate: it conveys the purpose and the data elements involved. However, it leaves undefined what 'current session' means and does not hint at the response shape, which an agent might need to interpret correctly. Given the tool's simplicity the gap is moderate, but the burden of full disclosure with no annotations means a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist to document. This score reflects the fact that the schema fully covers the parameter surface and no compensation is needed.

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 specific verb (

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 60 sibling tools including list_formulas, list_output_items, and list_detection_date_items that retrieve subsets of the same data, the description gives no indication that this tool returns the aggregate of those, nor when it is preferable to call this single tool instead of the individual listers. The reader must infer usage from the name alone.

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