Get Settings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, sensitive-data handling, or authentication requirements. The includeSecrets security concern is only present in the schema, not in the tool-level description.

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 immediately states the verb and resource, then provides useful examples. Every word earns its place with no padding or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no required parameters and an output schema available. The description orients the agent effectively by naming key settings and noting 'other configuration options,' making it complete enough for selection and invocation.

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%, and the includeSecrets parameter is fully documented with a clear security warning. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('current Uptime Kuma server settings') with concrete examples of returned fields. It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this settings-read tool from the monitor/notification/status-page siblings.

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 clearly scopes this to a server-settings retrieval, which is sufficient context for this simple tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed since this is the only settings-getter among the siblings.

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