Get config save state

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it warns that the raw fail-safe block's 'unsaved' field is NOT a save indicator and can read false while a save is in flight, steering the agent to the checksum instead. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the parsed fields, then the caveat and the recommended usage. Three sentences all carry weight, though the em-dash clause is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description fully carries the burden by naming the returned fields (last-change date in MSK and UTC, agent, user, checksum) and the unreliable field. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description instead documents the shape of the return payload, which is a reasonable substitute.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (parses show/last-change to report when config was last touched, by whom, and its checksum) and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_config (raw config) and diff_saved_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?

Gives a clear usage context ('the only reliable signal that a save has actually landed on disk') and an explicit invocation pattern ('Compare checksum across two calls'). It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when NOT to use it.

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