get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show' suggests a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states that it does not modify settings, whether it requires any permissions, or what happens if settings are unset. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter, though it could have used the space to add behavioral context without becoming wordy.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must stand alone to convey what calling the tool yields. It identifies the returned content as current browser and resume matching settings, but it does not describe the response shape or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. This is minimally adequate for a simple getter but leaves room for improvement.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to compensate for or clarify regarding parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies a clear resource ('current browser and resume matching settings'), making it evident this is a read/inspection tool. It is distinguishable from sibling setters like set_browser and set_resume, though it does not name them. The phrase 'matching settings' is slightly ambiguous, preventing a 5.

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 verb 'show' implies this tool is for reading current state, likely before using sibling setter tools. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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