config__open_relay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose the browser-launching side effect and explicitly says 'when possible', acknowledging the action may not always succeed. It also previews the return payload (URL, whether browser launched, and current status), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not clarify what 'current status' refers to or explain why browser launch might fail.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the side effect and the return values. Every clause provides distinct information without filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema available, the description is functionally complete: it says what the tool retrieves, what side effect it may have, and what it returns. The slight vagueness around the 'current status' and browser-launch conditions keeps it from being fully rich, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 wording names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('relay configuration URL for better-code-review-graph'), and it clearly distinguishes this from a generic sibling like config by tying the operation to the relay URL and browser-launch behavior. The purpose is immediately understandable with no ambiguity.

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 intended context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs the relay configuration URL and may want it opened in the browser. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tools are named.

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