settings_get

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

'Get' communicates a read-only retrieval, which is the core behavioral trait. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention response contents, access requirements, or potential error cases. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single five-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 parameterless getter, the essential action and resource are present and the call can be made correctly. The lack of an output schema or annotation leaves the returned settings object unspecified, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 empty schema already fully describes the call surface. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 names a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('Remnawave panel settings'). The sibling settings_update reinforces that this is the read-side counterpart, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 wording implies this tool should be used when panel settings need to be retrieved, which is reasonably clear for a parameterless getter. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or when settings_update or subscription_settings_get would be more appropriate.

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