Get My Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. It does add the useful 'account-level' scoping (as opposed to course-level settings), but says nothing about return shape or whether unseen settings fields may be omitted.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation clause.

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?

For a zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a level an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of indicating whether the result is a fixed field set or a broad preferences object, which would help an agent judge whether to also call get_notification_preferences.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool needs no input by describing a caller-scoped settings read, and the empty schema is consistent with that.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get your account-level Canvas preferences') plus concrete examples of what those preferences cover (dashboard view, activity stream visibility, comment notifications). It also names the adjacent sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_notification_preferences without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the boundary condition: for notification frequency, use get_notification_preferences instead. That single sentence names the most likely confusion and resolves it, leaving the agent no inference work.

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