read_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: absent keys mean the app default, so the agent knows it may receive a partial object, and it names the exact key/value conventions (weekStart 0=Sunday, effort none/rir/rpe).

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 and front-loaded with the main action, but the long comma-separated key dump is bloated and only partially useful given no output schema exists to carry it. The final routing sentence earns its place; the enumeration largely does not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably compensates by listing the returned keys and default semantics, and it disambiguates from sibling readers. It does not describe format of composite settings (reminder object) or pagination/versioning concerns, but for a zero-param read it is close to sufficient.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of the returned fields (enum meanings, defaults for absent settings), which is beyond any input-schema obligation.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads every stored setting of the profile, and it enumerates the actual setting keys returned. It also explicitly disambiguates from siblings (training data, rotation, day notes, measurements have their own tools), so an agent can separate it from read_profile, read_measurements, etc.

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?

It implicitly defines the use case (fetch the profile's stored settings) and explicitly routes away related-but-different data to other tools. It does not name a specific alternative for settings mutation (write_settings) or state when not to call it, so it stops short of a 5.

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