get_config

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing the specific fields included in the configuration (e.g., blockedCommands, defaultShell) and referencing invocation patterns ('DC: ...'), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope and usage context without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of fields and invocation notes. While slightly verbose due to the field listing, every sentence adds value (e.g., field details and usage reference), with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (read-only configuration retrieval), annotations cover safety, and the description details the returned fields and invocation context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the field listing. However, it could briefly mention response format or error handling for full completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the output semantics by listing the configuration fields returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, adding meaningful context beyond the empty input schema.

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 specific action ('Get the complete server configuration as JSON') and resource ('server configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_config_value' or 'get_usage_stats'. It explicitly lists the configuration fields included, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by stating 'This command can be referenced as "DC: ..." or "use Desktop Commander to ..." in your instructions,' which suggests a specific context for invoking the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_usage_stats' or 'set_config_value,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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