exposure_config_get

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

Annotations already establish read-only safety, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: the exact return shape {format, path, exists, config}, the semantic meaning of exists=false (built-in defaults apply), and the referenced scoping (AS-8). This is exactly the kind of contextual detail agents need.

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?

Three sentences earn their place: behavior, return contract, and safety. Only the cryptic '(AS-8)' reference feels like unneeded noise that could be explained or dropped.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the return contract and edge-case semantics (missing file) are well covered without an output schema. The missing explanation of the app_id parameter prevents a higher score — it's the one thing an agent would need to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never explains what app_id is or how it maps to the config file mentioned. The description mentions 'each seed destination' but doesn't tie this back to app_id, forcing the agent to guess the parameter's role — a real gap for a required argument.

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 precise verb-resource pair, "Read the standing exposure defaults" from the config file, and explains its role relative to the sibling exposure_slice. Any agent can distinguish this from the broader sibling list without opening another schema.

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?

Clearly implies when this applies — querying defaults that govern exposure_slice calls without an explicit preset. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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