plenticore_list_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: secrets are omitted from results, which tells the agent results are redacted and not authoritative for sensitive values. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume, so the extra value is real but narrow.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability and followed by the redaction caveat. No filler. It is arguably over-terse given the missing usage and parameter context, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be documented. But for a paginated, filterable discovery tool with three undocumented parameters and an adjacent read_settings sibling, the description leaves an agent without enough to call it correctly or choose it confidently.

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?

Three parameters (limit, query, offset) with 0% schema description coverage and no enum constraints. The description offers no semantics for any of them - no explanation of what query matches against, or how limit/offset interact. The names and defaults hint at pagination, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific outcome: discovering setting types with units, access rights and min/max bounds. That is clearly metadata discovery rather than value retrieval, which implicitly distinguishes it from plenticore_read_settings. However, it never names the sibling or says 'this does not return values', so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites. The nearest sibling, plenticore_read_settings, is an obvious confusion point that the description does nothing to disambiguate (e.g. 'call this first to find valid setting keys').

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