nrl_application_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as returning configuration data and lists the return structure. It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but for a parameterless config retriever, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 relatively concise (three sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, lists contents, explains utility, and provides return format. It could be slightly shorter, but it's effective.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (including a sample return structure), and provides an example use case. There are no missing details.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (applicationInfo, userInfo, competitionList, etc.), which compensates for the lack of schema 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 states 'NRL match-centre application config' and lists specific contents (competitionList, dataGrids, UI components, image paths). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'discovering active competitionIds and statistics,' which is unique among NRL tools like nrl_competitions or nrl_match.

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 says 'Handy for discovering the active competitionIds and which statistics the official site surfaces,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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