settings_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of auth requirements, caching, or whether the returned payload contains sensitive data — so it earns no credit for extra behavioral context.

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 short sentence with zero padding, front-loaded verb-first. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, readOnly, no output schema), so the description is not required to explain return values. Still, it omits the one thing that matters here: which settings object this returns relative to subscription_settings_get and system_configuration, leaving a real ambiguity unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description neither helps nor harms here.

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?

"Get Remnawave settings" does name a verb and a resource, but the resource phrase is little more than a restatement of the tool name (settings_get) plus the product name. It gives no signal separating it from sibling readers such as subscription_settings_get or system_configuration, so an agent cannot disambiguate which settings are meant.

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 when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the alternatives (settings_update for writes, subscription_settings_get for subscription-level settings). The agent is left to infer the scope entirely from the name.

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