activitywatch_get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves settings but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and parameter usage without unnecessary details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what settings are returned, their structure, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed for adequate agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'key' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'a specific key if provided,' but doesn't provide additional semantics like key examples, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ActivityWatch settings'), and distinguishes between retrieving all settings or a specific key. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'activitywatch_get_events' or 'activitywatch_list_buckets' beyond the resource name.

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 mentioning 'all settings or a specific key if provided,' which suggests when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vs. 'activitywatch_get_events') or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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