octri_get_sdk_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully enumerates the returned contents and flags the revision dependency needed for write-back. However, it never states this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation or notes any permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the one actionable constraint (revision). No filler, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does meaningful work by enumerating the returned fields and the revision's role. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter read tool, missing only safety/permission context.

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 coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource — persisted SDK Studio settings, per-endpoint overrides, revision, and last published release — so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not name the write counterpart octri_set_sdk_settings, though the mention of 'write settings back' alludes to it.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that the revision 'is required to write settings back' suggests fetching this before a set operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative.

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