Config Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it declares read-only explicitly ('nothing is exported, imported, or written here'), enumerates the comparison buckets it reports, and discloses the empty-sync-directory failure mode. It doesn't state auth/permission needs or exact return shape, but the safety profile and behavior are well covered.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence and keeps each paragraph to a single idea. Slightly verbose with backtick-heavy phrasing and a parenthetical that could be trimmed, but every sentence adds usable information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only comparison tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, non-destructive guarantee, reported categories, and the prerequisite for a meaningful result. No gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 per the baseline the schema fully covers input semantics and the description is not expected to add parameter detail. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty-parameter contract.

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 ('Compare active configuration with the exported sync directory') and immediately characterizes the comparison categories (same, differ, only-in-DB, only-in-sync). This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like diff_config, sync_config, and import_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?

Explicitly frames the result as 'what drush config:import would act on' and warns that an empty sync directory requires exporting first, naming `drush config:export` and the `export_config` tool. It stops short of naming rules vs diff_config/sync_config, the closest siblings, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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