wacta_get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the 'mismo array saneado' (same sanitized array) visible in the panel, which gives insight into the output and sanitization behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, mention permissions, or describe error behavior (e.g., invalid plugin). This is adequate but leaves some gaps for a read operation.

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, direct, and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, including the plugin enumeration and the note about the sanitized array. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the purpose and return behavior (same sanitized array as the panel). It lacks explicit caveats like read-only guarantee or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, the provided information is nearly complete. A perfect score would require mention of error cases or permissions.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'plugin' having an enum and description 'Plugin a leer.' The description repeats the enum values but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify default values, behavior on missing plugin, or format details, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lee' (reads) and the resource 'configuración completa de un plugin' (complete configuration of a plugin), enumerating the specific plugin options (core, studio, analytics, crm). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wacta_update_settings or wacta_list_ctas by clearly indicating a read operation on settings.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for reading the complete configuration of a plugin, with no exclusions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling names and the verb 'Lee' imply it is the read counterpart to update tools. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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