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. It clearly states this is a read/get operation returning config data, implying non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't describe side effects, whether the return includes derived/aggregated data, or any caching behavior. Moderate transparency.

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, focused sentence that states the purpose and the returned fields with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical list is compact and informative.

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?

The tool is a simple zero-parameter read operation with an output schema present, so the description need not explain return values (the output schema covers that). Combined with listed fields, the description is adequate and complete for its simple scope.

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 with 100% schema coverage (a vacant properties object is fully covered). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately names the exact fields returned, which adds meaningful context about what the empty parameter set will fetch.

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+resource ('Return the current ContextForge config') and enumerates exactly what fields are returned ('always_include, workspaces'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_context or get_current_workspace by specifying this is the full config.

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 clearly states what it returns, making it obvious to use when you need the config overview. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or reference alternatives such as get_current_workspace for workspace-only needs. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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