Get customization

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lighter. It does add one useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the returned table has defaults filled in for unset options. It says nothing about size, caching, or whether the read reflects persisted vs in-memory state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the return subject and uses the parenthetical only to enumerate fields. Every clause earns its place; the parenthetical list is dense but informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does so by naming the table and its option groups plus the defaults-filling behavior. For a zero-arg read this is nearly complete, missing only notes on freshness or how it relates to the setter.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% on an empty object), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource (the full SaveData.Custom table), and enumerates the option categories it contains, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name its write counterpart (set_customization/reset_customization) to sharpen the read-vs-write distinction, but the name and read framing are unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus set_customization, reset_customization, or get_ui_theme. Usage is only implied by the tool name; nothing tells the agent it should read before mutating or that it is the defaults-filled baseline.

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