seerr_get_user_settings_main

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a read-only operation, and the description consistently uses 'Get' with no contradiction. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., permissions needed, scope of settings returned, or error behavior). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but it still adds minimal value beyond the hint.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. There is no redundancy, and every word is necessary. It earns its place entirely.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only annotation, and presence of an output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. The output schema would presumably enumerate the fields of 'general settings,' so the description need not elaborate. The only shortfall is the lack of parameter explanation, but the parameter is self-evident from its name.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the user_id parameter at all. The schema provides the name and type (integer), but no semantic meaning such as 'the ID of the user whose settings are being retrieved.' Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Get general settings for a user' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (general settings for a user), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like seerr_get_user_settings_password, seerr_get_user_settings_notifications, and seerr_get_user_settings_permissions. The word 'general' explicitly sets it apart from more specific settings getters.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies via the name 'main' and the adjective 'general' that this is the primary settings endpoint, but it does not name alternatives or state exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than articulated.

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