get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'zeigt' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it mention potential prerequisites (e.g., the need to initialize the store). It adds useful context about the output (resolved, with provenance) but leaves some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 in German, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and format, delivering all the information without clutter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the fact that it returns the resolved configuration with provenance, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does and what output to expect, without needing to explain return values in detail because the output schema exists.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Zeigt die aktive, aufgelöste Konfiguration als JSON inkl. Herkunft.' It specifies a specific verb (zeigt), a resource (Konfiguration), output format (JSON), and an additional attribute (Herkunft). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_store or get_current_version, which address different concerns.

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 when one needs to inspect the resolved configuration, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, making the usage context only weakly implied.

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