devcdp_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly portrays a read-only inspection operation and discloses the range of information returned, including file search paths and error cases such as failed parses and unrecognized settings. It could be slightly more explicit about having no mutation side effects, but 'Show' plus the detailed listing strongly implies this.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary verb and purpose are front-loaded, followed by a compact enumeration of the tool's outputs and then a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only introspection command with two optional parameters. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining what information will be shown, and it also gives a practical usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and correctly invoke it.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (group and changed_only) with defaults and meanings. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show every DevCDP setting' and then details exactly what will be displayed: effective value, provenance, searched/loaded files, and parse failures. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling devcdp_settings_init, which is about initialization rather than inspection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it before changing configuration, and to check a change actually took effect.' It provides clear context for the appropriate moment to invoke it, though it does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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