Get effective configuration

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: merged precedence order and secret masking. It does not describe error behavior or the exact return shape, but it provides meaningful operational context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by masking behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 config getter, the description covers what is returned, how values are merged, secret handling, and when to call it. With no output schema present, it could say slightly more about the return structure, but it is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: returns the merged configuration with the precedence chain defaults < config file < environment < CLI. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling config mutators such as buffer_set_config and buffer_reset_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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to discover active settings before making changes. It does not explicitly name buffer_set_config or buffer_reset_config as the alternatives for mutation, but the intended read-before-write workflow is clear from the description and readOnly annotation.

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