What proceeds with nobody watching

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output content (defaultMode, allow rules, directories, bypass/auto disabled, hook commands) and notes hook commands run without a permission prompt. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free or read-only, but the nature of the config inspection implies safety. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good list of what the result contains. It also ties into the intended scenario (unattended agents) and repository review, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description covers the single parameter 'dir' with a clear explanation. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond that, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose: exposing configuration elements that allow tool calls to proceed without human supervision, listing specific components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whats_allowed or permission_sources by focusing on the 'unattended' operation context.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: 'Use before leaving an agent running unattended, or when reviewing what a repo's settings would do on your machine.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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