ArcadeDB Multi-Model DBMS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is read-only ('Retrieve'), describes output content (settings with values, defaults, descriptions), and notes a behavioral trait (sensitive values are masked). It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers key aspects adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value (output details and usage guidance) with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, output format, and usage. However, it does not specify error conditions or exact return structure (e.g., JSON format), leaving minor gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, with no gaps to compensate for.

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 specific action ('Retrieve'), resource ('ArcadeDB server configuration settings'), and scope ('all server-level settings'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'server_status' (operational status) or 'set_server_setting' (write operation). It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 clear context for usage ('to understand and diagnose server configuration'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'server_status' for operational health). This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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