List TraeCN Setting Options

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds a relevant sequencing caveat and the "visible choices" framing, but it does not describe any additional behavioral constraints such as nonexistent label/section handling or empty choices; this is acceptable only because the output schema and annotations carry the rest.

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?

One sentence packs the core operation, the identification method, the required predecessor, and a safeguard against inventing option values. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no 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?

For a read-only listing tool with two well-described parameters, a provided output schema, and explicit dependency on prior list_settings/list_setting_sections calls, nothing else is required for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema: label must exactly match list_settings output and section must exactly match list_setting_sections output. The description does not add more param-specific semantics beyond "identified by section and label," so the schema does the heavy lifting and no penalty or special credit is needed.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: "List the visible choices of one dropdown-style setting" and identifies the exact inputs needed (section and label). It also distinguishes this from the sibling tools list_settings and select_setting_option by scoping it to a single dropdown's choices.

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 explicitly says this is "Required before select_setting_option" and warns "never invent an option value," which tells an agent exactly when to use the tool and what behavior to avoid. It does not enumerate all alternatives, but the dropdown-style scoping plus the requirement before select_setting_option makes the usage context clear.

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