Get account-wide config

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms read behavior with 'Read'. It adds context beyond annotations by detailing the settings (gitMode, planLimits) and their structure, including optionality ('when captured'). No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 concise, comprising four sentences that front-load the purpose. It includes relevant details but has minor redundancy (e.g., referencing tickets FBMCPF-278/279). Overall, it is well-structured and earns its length.

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 description thoroughly covers the tool's output, including the default gitMode value and the detailed structure of planLimits with its fields. It also notes the storage location. Given no output schema, this is comprehensive and sufficient for agent understanding.

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 input parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered at 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output structure of the settings, which is helpful for interpreting the result, even though it does not address input parameters.

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 reads account-wide settings, specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'account-wide settings', and distinguishes from siblings like set_git_config by noting that project overrides use the latter. This provides specific and differentiated purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool ('applies across every project unless a project overrides them via set_git_config') but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_git_config for reading project-specific settings. No direct when-not or exclusions are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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