plenticore_read_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations — 'secrets are excluded' — telling the agent why some settings may be absent from results. It stops short of describing behavior for unknown IDs or missing entries.

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 sentences, no filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the prerequisite. The brace shorthand is dense enough that it takes a moment to parse, which slightly undercuts readability, but nothing 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 documentation isn't required, and the annotations plus the secrets-exclusion note cover behavior for a read-only tool. The remaining gap is routing: it never names the specific discovery tool to call first, which matters in a ten-tool sibling set with both list_modules and list_settings.

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 0% and the single parameter is an unlabeled nested object with additionalProperties, so the schema alone is opaque. The notation {moduleid: [setting IDs]} compensates well by explaining that keys are module IDs and values are arrays of setting ID strings — the core semantics the schema omits. It doesn't say where module IDs come from (though 'discover IDs first' hints at it) or whether IDs are case-sensitive.

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 verb 'Read' plus 'settings' and the payload form {moduleid: [setting IDs]} gives a concrete operation: fetch specified settings by ID. The word 'explicit' implicitly contrasts with the sibling plenticore_list_settings, though the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

'Discover IDs first' is a real workflow prerequisite that steers the agent toward the list tools before calling this one. However, it never names plenticore_list_settings or plenticore_list_modules, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use the list tool when you don't have IDs at all).

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