privacy_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a tool that accesses potentially sensitive privacy information.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation with well-documented parameters.

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 tool accessing privacy settings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what privacy settings are returned, the format of the response, or any authentication requirements. Given the sensitivity of privacy data and lack of structured context, more descriptive guidance is needed.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 'Fetch user privacy settings' clearly states the action (fetch) and resource (user privacy settings), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'devices' or 'status' which might also retrieve user-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for fetching privacy settings, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'status' or 'devices' that might provide related user data.

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