get_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: it reveals where the config file lives (<INSAIGHT_HOME>/config.md), that the file is created with placeholder values on first call (a genuine side effect), and instructs the agent to ask the user to edit the file if values remain placeholders. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs disclosed that structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, workflow timing, then file location plus edge-case handling. The most important information is front-loaded and there is zero fluff.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the config contains, where it lives, the first-call creation side effect, and how to handle placeholder values. Nothing material is missing.

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 properties schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Return the user's insaight config (Notion pages, company name/slug)' — making what the tool does unambiguous. While it doesn't name a sibling explicitly, none of the listed siblings (list_accounts, get_stats, get_memory, etc.) plausibly overlaps with a config-bootstrap tool, and the usage line further establishes its unique role.

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?

'Skills call this first to learn where to save research and whose voice to write in' gives explicit workflow context: this tool is the entry point before saving research or writing. It clearly states when to use it but does not name alternatives or state when-not-to, so it stops short of a 5.

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