Get Options

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' options, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention that it makes no modifications, nor does it describe the response format (e.g., a JSON object) or any potential side effects like rate limits or caching. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer safety and output characteristics.

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 that includes the verb, resource, and even the underlying API path. It is concise with zero wasted words, ideal for a simple getter.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description might be sufficient, but it lacks any mention of the return structure or how this differs from the sibling 'options_info'. Since the tool is a simple getter, the description could be slightly more complete by stating 'returns a JSON object of current settings' or noting that it's the full options object. The absence of such detail leaves some ambiguity, though not critical.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is inherently complete. According to rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't add parameter info because none exist. No need for compensation.

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 'Get all current UI/server options' with the specific HTTP endpoint, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from any potential write operations like 'set_options' by using 'Get'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'options_info', the explicit scope and endpoint are specific enough.

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 like 'options_info' or 'set_options'. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. For a simple getter this might be acceptable, but the lack of context leaves ambiguity given the large sibling set.

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