get_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Read" implies a safe non-mutating call and "this server instance project" clarifies that it resolves the server's configured project rather than the cwd, but it says nothing about failure behavior when no Solhint config exists, caching, precedence resolution, or the shape of the returned data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the action and scope with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than tightly packing useful detail.

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 tool is simple (no params, no nested objects) and the description covers the core action and scope. With no output schema, however, the agent gets no indication of what the returned config looks like or what happens if the project has no Solhint config, leaving a modest gap for a read tool.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Read the Solhint config" with a stated scope of "this server instance project." An agent can distinguish it from the lint/fix/explain siblings since none of them read configuration, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is referenced as an alternative. The only hint is the scope phrase "this server instance project," which implies the call is about inspecting configuration rather than running a lint pass, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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