get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the group examples; it does not disclose return format or any edge cases, but the bar is lower due to 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The group examples are useful and not wasteful.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could have mentioned that list_setting_groups provides additional groups not listed, but the provided examples and schema are sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both group_id and fields already documented. The description's examples are somewhat redundant with the schema, though they add a bit of context about what each group contains, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 gets all settings in a group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_setting and list_setting_groups by focusing on reading settings within a group.

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 provides common group examples and their contents, giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to list_setting_groups for discovering all groups.

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