list_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the breaker is per URL rather than per channel, that `haveDisabledWebhooks` is true when at least one URL is sticky-disabled (not that the channel is dead), and that live URLs keep receiving events. It also flags that top-level `circuitState`/`reason`/`fails`/`trips` are a compatibility summary of a single URL, which prevents a serious misreading of the data. Minor gap: it never explicitly says the operation is read-only, though 'Return' and 'GET /settings' imply it.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and tells the agent what it gets. The following paragraphs are dense, rely on bold and inline code, and read as API documentation prose rather than tool guidance, making the key selection hint ('Prefer webhookStatuses') easy to bury. Every sentence is informative, so this is density rather than padding, but structure could be tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and it largely does, covering the top-level circuit fields and the per-URL rows of webhookStatuses. It does not enumerate the 'delivery flags' and 'analytics toggles' it promises in the opening sentence, leaving part of the payload shape unstated, but the highest-risk ambiguity, whether the channel is disabled, is resolved.

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 is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on interpreting the field semantics of the response, which is the relevant substitute.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return channel settings') and enumerates the content returned: webhook URL(s), delivery flags, analytics toggles. It also anchors itself to a known endpoint ('same GET /settings endpoint as the REST API'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_webhook and the other settings siblings, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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 instruction 'Prefer `webhookStatuses` (one row per configured URL)' does route the agent toward an alternative when per-URL detail is needed, and the mention that circuit state matches GET /webhook gives context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool rather than get_webhook or get_calling_settings, and webhookStatuses is not among the listed siblings, so the routing hint is only partially actionable.

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