Get tenant settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the returned data but does not explicitly state idempotency, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits. While the tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive detail, a note about safety (e.g., 'No side effects') would improve transparency.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose and the second gives usage context, front-loading the key information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the return data (statuses, types). It also provides usage context. However, it does not mention caching, rate limits, or whether the data is tenant-specific, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no additional meaning is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the returned configuration includes, which is beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves Karbon account configuration including valid work statuses, work types, and contact types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying these are configuration values, not entity CRUD operations.

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 advises calling this tool before creating or updating work items or contacts with tenant-specific values, providing clear context for when to use it. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient.

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