m8811_get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what is read (output state, mode, etc.), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format or latency, which is acceptable given the existing 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the contents clearly with no wasted words. It is concise and easily scannable.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context for a read-only settings retrieval tool. It covers the key categories of settings and is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the resource being read.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and clearly specifies the resource: output state, mode, setpoints, protection, and rated model limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like m8811_measure (which likely reads measured values) and other get_settings tools for different devices.

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 for reading configuration settings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or contrast with measurement tools like m8811_measure, so it falls short of clear contextual guidance.

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