get_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and specifying the two pieces of returned data (Ollama URL and embedding model) provides concrete transparency. It lacks details on errors or response format, but for a zero-parameter getter this is sufficient.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides the key details in a parenthetical. There is zero wasted wording.

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, parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what it does and what data it returns. It omits the response shape or types, but these are inferable from the named fields ('Ollama URL' implies a string, 'embedding model' implies a string).

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial and no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on the resource rather than parameters, matching the baseline of 4 for tools with no params.

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') with a clear resource ('current Locus settings') and immediately names the exact fields returned ('Ollama URL and embedding model'). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_settings and health_check without needing to open any schemas.

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 implies the obvious use case: call this when you need the current settings, as opposed to update_settings when you want to change them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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