get_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the fact that start_login is insufficient, which are non-obvious behavioral constraints. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the absence of stated side effects, though it does not explicitly guarantee no mutation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, and the access caveat is a separate, clearly labeled note. Every sentence provides actionable information without 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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the included fields, and the access requirements. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly mentioning the sibling update_settings or clarifying whether any other settings are excluded, but the agent has enough to call it successfully.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by listing what settings are returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose even though no parameters need explanation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves account settings and enumerates specific included fields (business name, logo, colors, support email, email theme). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_current_user or get_usage, and from update_settings by using the verb 'Get.'

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 explicit access prerequisites: requires a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server restarted. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which prevents a common misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative getter tools or when to prefer them, but the scope is clear enough.

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