show_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only labels the tool as [READ] without elaborating on side effects, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits. The description lacks depth beyond indicating a read operation.

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 one line plus a short bullet list. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well. It does not explain return format or error conditions, but for an informational tool this is acceptable. Minor gap given no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining 'pattern' (case-insensitive substring filter with examples like 'work_mem') and 'target' (optional target name). This provides practical context beyond the schema's titles and types.

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?

Description clearly states it reads configuration parameters from pg_settings, specifying it's a READ operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with queries, vacuum, or other actions.

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 explains the arguments and their usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use show_settings vs update_setting or other info tools). Usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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