get_council_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific data fields returned but does not disclose any potential edge cases like whether defaults are shown or if an error occurs when no council is configured. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource. It avoids extraneous words and fully conveys the tool's purpose and return content.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, readOnlyHint present), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The list of fields is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter syntax. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies, and the description's enumeration of return fields provides additional context beyond the empty schema.

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 returns the current council configuration and enumerates the exact components (member models, judge model, response mode, max deconfliction rounds). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_models (which lists models) and configure_council (which modifies configuration).

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 purpose is self-evident as a getter, implying use when you need to inspect the current configuration. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like configure_council or set_council_timeouts, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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