List settings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses two important behaviors: secret-looking keys are hidden from values, and the module's own settings are excluded from results. This adds meaningful context an agent could not infer from the structured metadata alone.

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 three sentences, starts with the primary action and resource, and each sentence adds essential information (output fields, secret filtering, module exclusion, client scope definition). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list tool with an annotations-provided safety profile, the description covers the tool's purpose, output fields, scope semantics, and notable filtering behaviors. While there is no output schema, the description names the returned fields, and all parameter docs live in the schema, so an agent has enough to call and interpret the result.

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%, so all five parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (it mostly describes output and exclusions), which aligns with the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific action ('Read') and a precise resource ('registered world and client settings of the core or of chosen modules and systems'), and lists the output fields (name, scope, type, value). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get-permissions by noting that the MCP module's own settings are not listed there, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context: it explains the two scope categories (world/client), clarifies that client settings are the Gamemaster browser's, and explicitly routes users to get-permissions for the MCP module's own settings. It does not mention alternative tools for reading settings, but the contrast with get-permissions and the scope clarifications provide actionable guidance.

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