dashbrr_list_settings

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, already indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that API keys are stripped from the response and that the response is keyed by instanceId. This goes beyond the basic annotation while remaining appropriate for a simple list tool.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: listing the action, noting the security behavior, and giving a usage pointer. No redundant or filler content; the description is front-loaded with the essential information.

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, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior (list all services), the keying convention, a security disclosure, and a clear link to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output key structure (instanceId examples), which helps the agent understand the response even though the schema has no parameters to document.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'every configured service' and clearly states the response is keyed by instanceId with examples. This distinguishes it from the many per-service sibling tools (e.g., dashbrr_get_sonarr_stats) that query individual services.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use the instanceId keys here as the instance_id argument to the per-service tools,' establishing this as a discovery/prerequisite step. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly explains when not to use it (for specific service data).

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