Api settings sso retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond them — that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response — but it never explains what 'unauthorized' means or which fields are affected, weakening the value.

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 sentence with no filler, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline; the one clause present is not the most important thing an agent needs to know.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what is returned. It never identifies the SSO settings object or its fields, leaving the most important context missing for a settings-retrieval tool surrounded by similarly named siblings.

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 and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies.

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 sentence says only 'Return a single object', with no mention of SSO settings, which is the actual resource named in the tool name and title. It adds a masking detail but never states what entity is being retrieved, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like settings_sso_info_retrieve, settings_sso_object_retrieve, or settings_sso_provider_retrieve.

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 use this tool, no prerequisites, and no routing to the three closely-named SSO siblings. An agent is left to guess purely from the identifier.

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