scf_get_document_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation, indicates the viewer role suffices, and details the three pieces of state returned. This gives the agent a good sense of side-effect-free behavior, though it does not describe error cases or response formatting.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then compactly lists the three settings returned. Every phrase adds value and no padding exists.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the required role, the read-only nature, and exactly what information will be returned. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the org_id parameter already has a clear description pointing to scf_list_organizations. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema already documents the only parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('organization's document-generation settings') and enumerates exactly what is returned. It clearly distinguishes this read-only settings getter from the sibling scf_update_document_settings, even without naming it.

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: this is for reading an organization's document-generation settings and is available to a viewer role. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the read-only framing implicitly differentiates it from update-type siblings.

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