get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive behavior. The description adds value by enumerating all returned fields (e.g., telemetryEnabled, clientHistory, systemInfo), which helps the agent understand what the configuration contains beyond a mere 'get config' label. No contradictions noted.

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 efficient: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear bullet list of fields. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but the list is necessary for completeness.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lists all config fields, leaving no ambiguity. The simplicity of the tool makes this appropriate.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by listing the specific fields in the output, which is helpful for the agent to know what data will be returned. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 it retrieves the complete server configuration as JSON. It lists specific fields (blockedCommands, defaultShell, etc.) and uses a specific verb ('Get'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_config_value by focusing on retrieval.

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 mentions how to reference the tool in instructions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_config_value. For a read-only config tool, explicit advice on when to use (e.g., for inspecting settings) or when not (e.g., for modification) is missing.

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