get_ai_plus

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned settings and that `tunable` supplies type/min/max/unit/default metadata, which is genuinely useful. However it never explicitly states the operation is side-effect free or whether it requires configuration access, leaving the safety profile to inference from the name and the 'read before update' phrasing.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the sequencing rule. The enumeration of returned fields is dense but every item adds discriminating detail; the only mild redundancy is 'effective settings' alongside the explicit field list.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't document return values, and the one-parameter input is trivial. Combined with the update_ai_plus cross-reference, an agent has enough to call this correctly; the only real gap is the absence of any statement about the site_id parameter or access requirements.

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 0% and the single parameter `site_id` has no title beyond the field name and no explanation in the description. The tool is site-scoped, so the description could have said that settings are returned for the given site, but it says nothing about the parameter at all.

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 names the resource (Ai+ / amber_smart configuration) and enumerates what it surfaces: activation state, engine variant, options, effective settings, and the `tunable` levers with their metadata. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_status or get_energy_mode. It never states the verb 'read/return' outright, relying on the noun-phrase construction, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 closing clause 'Read before update_ai_plus' gives explicit sequencing guidance and names the sibling it pairs with, which is exactly the kind of routing an agent needs. It does not state when to skip this tool or how it differs from other read tools like get_status, so no exclusion criteria are provided.

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